Another Freudian Slip?

[Jan]

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.

 

Again you are generalising to prove a point - I never said everything they said was a lie - where did I say that.

I did show you occasions where I thought the police had bent the truth - on several occasions - your answer was that they were just "mistaken"

All I said was that a lot of your statements were based on the assumption that they were telling the truth. One example I believe is the "exaggeration " of what Jeremy said on the night to suit the scenario that they were duped.

If you look at what he said about Sheila using guns in his first statement then it does not agree with the September statements at all. Now if he was the one telling lies the officers ( who obviously had a debrief) would have known within two days he had lied on the night. Guess what they did not pick that up at all.

Get my point ?

Plus the two officers who were "mistaken" about Sheilas head / the gun / and the bible being in a different position?

[Reader]

There was insufficient time to call her after he finally got off the phone with the police.

It's clear that he called Julie before calling Pc West, seeking advice as to what he should do.

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

If that's correct (you conveniently ignore the "trick of the light" incident), the police might well have decided to gain entry quietly via a window at a much earlier stage.

[scipio_usmc]

It's clear that he called Julie before calling Pc West, seeking advice as to what he should do.
If that's correct (you conveniently ignore the "trick of the light" incident), the police might well have decided to gain entry quietly via a window at a much earlier stage.

Police said Jeremy told them he saw movement, they moved their heads and that simulated movement but they realized they didn't see a thing.

How could they quietly enter through the windows?  Jeremy failed to tell them the windows could be unlocked until much later.  He lied and told them there was no way inside which in itself is damning.  Why did he conceal it?  Because he wanted them to think there was no way in so they would believe Sheila had to have done  it.

As for his call to Julie he did such for 2 reasons 1) he was excited and couldn't contain himself and wanted to share his excitement 2) he was trying to bolster his alibi by having her say he called her so this proves he had genuine concern and really received the call as he claimed.

He had no valid reason for waking her up.  Calling her for advice makes little sense so that is why he lied and said he called her after.

[Adam]

The 'Crimes that shook Britain' has Jeremy as spotting someone inside WHF. Other sources have it as a police officer.

If it was Jeremy it was a pre planned deliberate lie. If it was the police,  it was a mistake.

Either way everyone continued to look at the window and saw nothing.

[Alias]

The 'Crimes that shook Britain' has Jeremy as spotting someone inside WHF. Other sources have it as a police officer.

If it was Jeremy it was a pre planned deliberate lie. If it was the police,  it was a mistake.

Either way everyone continued to look at the window and saw nothing.

One source is a police officer who was actually there. He said the other police officer on their round about the house saw something more - or so he thought. It was not Jeremy.

[Caroline]

One source is a police officer who was actually there. He said the other police officer on their round about the house saw something more - or so he thought. It was not Jeremy.

Who?

[Reader]

According to Ps Bews, it was Pc Myall, but we can't rely on what Ps Bews said in that documentary. The relevant wording was as shown below.

As we go round, Steve Myall says "Oh, hang on, stop. I think I saw someone move." And we look up and think 'Where?' He said "That window up there." And he's indicating as we're looking at the back of the building, top right, so first floor on the right-hand side, no light coming out of the building, and I couldn't see anything. We, we look at it for a while, and I said "Are you sure you saw something move?" And he said "Well, I think so." I said "Well, let's move back." We became quite satisfied, after a couple of minutes of just moving ourselves slightly, that we could replicate the same sense of movement, and it wasn't anybody moving, it was just a trick of, literally, a trick of the light.

[lookout]

Let's remember,it was a cop who first noticed the " trick of light "----------------not Jeremy.!

[Jan]

The 'Crimes that shook Britain' has Jeremy as spotting someone inside WHF. Other sources have it as a police officer.

If it was Jeremy it was a pre planned deliberate lie. If it was the police,  it was a mistake.

Either way everyone continued to look at the window and saw nothing.

How convenient .
Perhaps you should review the two videos again when the officer involved gets very confused. And why are the police allowed to make so many "mistakes" - I thought they were all professionals who knew how to handle a siege situation and protect the public?

[Caroline]

How convenient .
Perhaps you should review the two videos again when the officer involved gets very confused. And why are the police allowed to make so many "mistakes" - I thought they were all professionals who knew how to handle a siege situation and protect the public?

Which is why they acted with caution, they weren't to know that everyone was already dead - Jeremy's story contributed to how the situation was handled.

[lookout]

Which is why they acted with caution, they weren't to know that everyone was already dead - Jeremy's story contributed to how the situation was handled.

Which in turn is why Jeremy didn't approach the farmhouse as others have pointed out " if it were their family " and rushed in to save them in order to save his own skin,the same as the police's view.

[Caroline]

Which in turn is why Jeremy didn't approach the farmhouse as others have pointed out " if it were their family " and rushed in to save them in order to save his own skin,the same as the police's view.

Huh?

[scipio_usmc]

Again you are generalising to prove a point - I never said everything they said was a lie - where did I say that.

I did show you occasions where I thought the police had bent the truth - on several occasions - your answer was that they were just "mistaken"

All I said was that a lot of your statements were based on the assumption that they were telling the truth. One example I believe is the "exaggeration " of what Jeremy said on the night to suit the scenario that they were duped.

If you look at what he said about Sheila using guns in his first statement then it does not agree with the September statements at all. Now if he was the one telling lies the officers ( who obviously had a debrief) would have known within two days he had lied on the night. Guess what they did not pick that up at all.

Get my point ?

Plus the two officers who were "mistaken" about Sheilas head / the gun / and the bible being in a different position?

The police admitted they were WRONG in their initial reaction to the photos that the photos didn't reflect the scene as they remembered it.  You ignore that time passed, they only saw her a short time and they had a lot of other things happen job wise.  They decided they were wrong.   You try pretending they never decided they were wrong and keep asserting they declared the photos don't match.  That is dishonesty on your part. In the meantime the supposed movements of her body are inconsequential.  you and other Jeremy supporters never point to anything material.  She was moved by police after her blood was already dry the movements are meaningless as far as trying to use them to help the defense in any way.

Jeremy MADE UP LIES about Sheila having fired all weapons in the house and having trained her to fire the murder weapon.  His lie accomplished its goal they believed she committed the murders.  After thinking about it later he realized it sounded suspicious that he would have trained her to use it, that would provide an innocent reason for her fingerprints being found on the weapon plus the family said she had no interest in guns so he changed his claims to match theirs figuring the police already were convinced she did it so he no longer needed to continue with the farce.  There is no way he made an innocent mistake falsely remembering he trained her and falsely remembering she fired all weapons in the house.  Nor is it credible that so many cops decided to lie and pretend that on so many different occasions he said he trained her and that she fired all the weapons.  Jeremy had a reason to lie they didn't. 

My approach is an objective rational one while yours is a biased approach.  A biased approach allows you to rationalize in your mind what you would like to believe but is worthless in helping establish your beliefs as rational let alone able to be supported by evidence.  Unless supported by evidence you have no hope of even getting your claims before a court let alone any chance of convincing a court.  Since objective rational people take the same approach as a court you have no chance of convincing them either.
       

[Jan]

Of course they had a reason to lie. They had decided to change track and get Jeremy - so with very little evidence they needed everything they could get - including elaborating what Jeremy said on the night so they did not look  like fools.

If he was telling such huge porky pies then why did the police pick it up in his first statements. They knew what he had said on the night - so why not pick up the discrepancies straight away?

It seems to me your bias and conviction that he is guilty blinds you sometimes -You say you like discussion - but all you do is preach and never look at the alternative possibilities.

And I bet all the officers had another debrief before the sept statements.

[Jan]

so here you are the very obvious lie that he told to the police on the 8th which contradicts everything he told them on the night. So why did they not pick up on this immediately?