Another Freudian Slip?

[nugnug]

how do we know he never told them that he might of done they might of forgotton.

[nugnug]

policeman are people they are no more rational than anybody else.

there not a seprate specious they act emotionally and iratanioly like everybidy elese does.

[Jan]

Jeremy's reason for calling Julie does not make sense.

He said 'no comment' when asked in his police interview.

However when testifying he said he 'wanted to hear a friendly voice'.

His father had just rang and said 'please come over, Sheila's gone crazy and she's got the gun'. Yet he was calm enough to decide be wanted to hear a friendly voice. After he had spoken to the police.

I will be honest with you Adam ( not that you will return the favour)  I am not sure in what order he made the calls . But he did change the order after the police said they could prove what times he made the calls ( a lie) . He had been questioned for many hours - and was actually asked them to check calls to prove his innocence ( he thought they could)

It was possible his first statement was correct and he called her after the police - because all the original timings in her statement and his and for the police seem to tie up.

Or did he call her first for advice? ( big mistake) and then realise that looked really bad ( in retrospect) when he found his family were all dead - so he panicked and lied ?

I am not sure - because Julie was allowed to change her times and so were the officers - which muddies the waters completely.

As I said the police said he became very agitated with the delay - so perhaps he felt they would just rush over and help straight away - as he had not told them any shots had been fired.

And remember this - If he was guilty they would have arrived at a house - quiet / no shouting /no shooting / no movement / no voices 

And he only answered the questions he was asked - so you would think as a guilty man he would have assumed they would have gone in straight away.

[Jan]

This is a perfect example of your own biases that prevent you from being rational in any case we discuss.  Your attitude is all police are bad no one should ever be convicted...it basically renders your behavior trollish.

That is not what was said at all .

We are all aware that in the 80s there were good and bad police - I can show you proof if you want.

But in a recent documentary they admitted that in the 80s the "fit up" was rife. And trust me you would not dare to "whistle blow"

Try not to twist peoples comments to suit your agenda .

And as for trollish - that is just ridiculous.

[Jan]

This is a perfect example of your own biases that prevent you from being rational in any case we discuss.  Your attitude is all police are bad no one should ever be convicted...it basically renders your behavior trollish.

I repeat your posts are based on the assumption that every statement by the police in this case was 100% truthful. Well even some of the guilters think the silencer was not used - so how do you find where the truth is told and where it is blurred?

[Jane]

1) he gave a list of guns that were in the house - were any of those not in there? If not he was not telling lies. ( AP gun does not count because he contradicted himself)
2) He denied he told the police she had used everyone of the guns - and that comment only arrived as an accusation after he was suspected
3) you are basing your opinions with an assumption that british police never lie to get their man. Well there is plenty of evidence including their own admissions to prove that is definitely NOT a fact.

Jan, I agree unequivocally that police have been known to lie -even our BRITISH police!!!!- but I find it inconceivable that the whole of Essex Division, the relatives, the forensic team et al should all lie because it was decided -at ground level- to withhold, from Jeremy, the fact that his father had called them previously, on the grounds that they may wish to frame him for a crime that they already had a culprit for. It makes no sense at all.....................IMO

[nugnug]

the whole of essex division were not involved in the investigation thats a gross exageration.

we are talking about a tint few poliman here.

how many policeman lied about hillsbourgh,

[Jane]

the whole of essex division were not involved in the investigation thats a gross exageration.

Thank-you for clarifying that, Nugs

[scipio_usmc]

1) he gave a list of guns that were in the house - were any of those not in there? If not he was not telling lies. ( AP gun does not count because he contradicted himself)

Because who contradicted himself?  He claimed there was a large collection of shotguns and 22 rifles.    There ended up being a 12 bore shotgun, 2 .410 shotguns, a pellet rifle and the 22LR.  4 firearms and an airgun.     

2) He denied he told the police she had used everyone of the guns - and that comment only arrived as an accusation after he was suspected
3) you are basing your opinions with an assumption that british police never lie to get their man. Well there is plenty of evidence including their own admissions to prove that is definitely NOT a fact.

No I am basing my assumptions on evidence while you decide that the police are untrustworthy anytime they say something damaging to Jeremy.  The objective way to look at it is to require evidence the police are lying.  That is the way it works.  You have none.  It wasn't just one cop but MANY different cops who Jeremy told Sheila had fired all weapons in the house and that he trained her how to use the murder weapon.  Why would they all get together and make up the claim he said that to them?  Making it up would serve no purpose.  Mercer the dog handler barely had dealings with the other officers why would he make it up?  He said while in the car talking to Jeremy that he asked Jeremy if she knew how to fire the murder weapon.  His statement reads that Jeremy said to him, "I've taken her out a couple of times and shown her".  Why would he make it up?  How could he have misinterpreted this? 

The statement of the police are much more credible than Jeremy's denials since they had no reason to lie and there were so many of them against his word where he did have a reason to lie.  Your biased subjective opinion doesn't change the objective view. 

[Jan]

Jan, I agree unequivocally that police have been known to lie -even our BRITISH police!!!!- but I find it inconceivable that the whole of Essex Division, the relatives, the forensic team et al should all lie because it was decided -at ground level- to withhold, from Jeremy, the fact that his father had called them previously, on the grounds that they may wish to frame him for a crime that they already had a culprit for. It makes no sense at all.....................IMO

I have never said that I believe that call did happen.

But I can totally understand why the logs would be used in an attempt to bring attention to the case.

And I could not understand why if the police made a mistake on the night and it was convenient for them to go with the murder suicide - why they would change track. However I do think the family did have " friends" in high places and certain influence ( if you know what I mean) so the choices may have been taken out of their hands.

If I did not still have questions I would not be here.

[scipio_usmc]

I repeat your posts are based on the assumption that every statement by the police in this case was 100% truthful. Well even some of the guilters think the silencer was not used - so how do you find where the truth is told and where it is blurred?

I approach this from the proper standpoint which is that police are presumed to be honest unless proven otherwise.  The burden is on you to prove otherwise and when you have MULTIPLE police who spoke to Jeremy at different times saying the same thing it helps establish he did in fact say such things. 

Jeremy supporters instead decide that police are untrustworthy and nothing should be believed except those things favorable to Jeremy.  It is an absurd position to take.

It helps explain why average Jeremy supporters have no chance in hell of establishing Jeremy's innocence to an objective, informed internet poster let alone an Appellate court.  You don't understand what evidence must be refuted let alone try to figure out a way how to refute it.  You just ignore everything unfavorable as if they makes it go away.

The burden is on you to prove the police lied just saying different police have on occasion lied doesn't in any way establish it is reasonably likely any of the police in this case lied about anything.

 

[scipio_usmc]

I have never said that I believe that call did happen.

But I can totally understand why the logs would be used in an attempt to bring attention to the case.

And I could not understand why if the police made a mistake on the night and it was convenient for them to go with the murder suicide - why they would change track. However I do think the family did have " friends" in high places and certain influence ( if you know what I mean) so the choices may have been taken out of their hands.

If I did not still have questions I would not be here.

You are suggesting that the police should have been stupid and stuck with a theory that they knew was wrong just to save face even after Julie came forward and the lab revealed they were wrong.  That would be wrongdoing on their part.

The Critical part of the Dickinson report that deals with all the things that resulted in police being forced to change course was conveniently omitted from the version released publicly by a Jeremy supporter (which Harters copied to post here). The report went day by day discussing the updates int he case but the key September updates where the bullets were processed by the lab and moderator processed and Julie's claims discussed were all intentionally left out.   

No one knows for sure what DCI Jones would have done if he were still in charge when these developments came about.  No one can say for sure he would have decided to ignore them to save face.  It seems silly to speculate whether he would have done the right thing or not.

   

[lookout]

Someone actually concerned about the occupants would be demanding police go inside and trying to observe through windows and asking them to call the house to see if they could or go knock on the door/plead with police to knock on the door.  He waited  along time before finally putting on an act so that he could use that as an excuse to call Julie to tell her not to go to work so she could speak to police on his behalf after the bodies are finally discovered.

After they were found he didn't have survivor guilt.  Most people in his place would and that is before even taking into account his claim he is the one who left the bullets, loaded magazine and gun out that allegedly Sheila encountered and used because this weapon of opportunity was there.  This is one of the red flags to the family- that he never told them he blamed himself and regretted leaving the gun out and had survivor guilt.  He was an inconsistent actor.

I'm afraid Jeremy wouldn't have been overly familiar with the way police operated and would have seen them as upholders of the law,so were to be obeyed In other words,you don't tell THEM what THEY should,or should not be doing. There's no other way of putting this,but the law will only do what they themselves think fit,and not what you ask/request them to do.

I bet his thoughts are a lot different now as regards the law as it stands,as he looks back and wishes he'd been more forceful towards them. Contrary to what you and others might think,but Jeremy was a gentle soul who wouldn't have said boo to a goose so was less likely to have given the police an " out of character " performance of stamping feet and abuse.

For all we know,Jeremy might have asked questions while he was in the courtyard with the police,but they're not likely to speak up at this late stage,are they ? Even if Jeremy says himself that he was pleading,etc,nobody would believe him anyway. My own belief is that he wouldn't have just stood there like a statue completely speechless,much as the police would like you to think so. They're past-masters when it comes to twisting words,and are bigoted towards those who they think are cleverer than themselves.

[Jane]

I have never said that I believe that call did happen.

But I can totally understand why the logs would be used in an attempt to bring attention to the case.

And I could not understand why if the police made a mistake on the night and it was convenient for them to go with the murder suicide - why they would change track. However I do think the family did have " friends" in high places and certain influence ( if you know what I mean) so the choices may have been taken out of their hands.

If I did not still have questions I would not be here.

I think there's a HUGE irony about this Jan. I have never moved from my position of belief that he wasn't seen to be "One of us." I believe it sprung from RWB who indoctrinated Ann and David with his thoughts, but I believe it bypassed Pam. With her it may have been a question of "If I can't say anything nice I won't say anything" and June was her sister, after all.

For WHATEVER reason, I believe they thought Jeremy was guilty and actually for all he said, ACTIONS speak louder and he gave them no good reason to think otherwise. On top of which, I believe that the possibility of him BEING guilty may have been like a guilty secret that they hugged to themselves, hopefully, after all, it was hardly seemly to accuse one's nephew/cousin so perhaps they got round it by saying that Sheila couldn't possibly have done it. The initial reasons for disliking Jeremy were never of his making. He was a child. However, as he got older, I don't think he made any attempt to change things and probably treated them with the contempt he believed them to treat him.

[scipio_usmc]

I will be honest with you Adam ( not that you will return the favour)  I am not sure in what order he made the calls . But he did change the order after the police said they could prove what times he made the calls ( a lie) . He had been questioned for many hours - and was actually asked them to check calls to prove his innocence ( he thought they could)

It was possible his first statement was correct and he called her after the police - because all the original timings in her statement and his and for the police seem to tie up.

Or did he call her first for advice? ( big mistake) and then realise that looked really bad ( in retrospect) when he found his family were all dead - so he panicked and lied ?

There was insufficient time to call her after he finally got off the phone with the police.  Moreover, in none of her accounts not even those where she was trying to help him did she claim he told her he had called police.  It makes no sense to call her and tell her he needs consoling instead of getting dressed to go meet police like was requested. It is quite obviously he called her first and did so because he was excited and didn't give a crap about her but cared about himself so didn't mind waking her.  He was excited and also erroneously thought it would help support his alibi to call her and claim he received a call from WHF reporting trouble.  Instead it just looks like he was trying to bolster a nonexistent alibi because someone in his place would not be calling her at all.  They would be busy dressing and going to WHF.  But he was already dressed he had changed into his PJs to go to sleep ever.  He had previously  changed out of the clothes he committed the murders in into fresh clothes.

I am not sure - because Julie was allowed to change her times and so were the officers - which muddies the waters completely.

Julie consulted with her roomates and then reported the timing they provided. Their timing makes clear the call came well before police were called. In fact times before even Jeremy claimed that Nevill phoned.  All of them make clear the call can't have come after 3:30am and most likely came much earlier.  Jeremy was on the phone with police from prior to 3:26 until close to 3:40.  That means there is no way his call to Julie was after the call to police.   

As I said the police said he became very agitated with the delay - so perhaps he felt they would just rush over and help straight away - as he had not told them any shots had been fired.

He faked the agitation after a long period he wasn't agitated when he should have been and it was jsut an excuse to call Julie so he could tell her not to go to work so that she could talk to police on his behalf to help protect him.

And remember this - If he was guilty they would have arrived at a house - quiet / no shouting /no shooting / no movement / no voices 

And he only answered the questions he was asked - so you would think as a guilty man he would have assumed they would have gone in straight away.

There was never any noise from the house or any movements seen.  Everyone was dead before police ever arrived.