Another Freudian Slip?

[Steve_uk]

He was too interested in partying to get the keys.  He was going away for an extended vacation so told police to give them to his family.  He used the opportunity to pretend he was too upset to ever go to WHF again he gave a performance saying he would never step foot in again  Then after returning from his weekend of partying what did he do?  Doh  he went to WHF to get his father's wallet and take a look at the items he thought he would be able to sell.

When the police gave up the keys it meant they were done with the place he didn't expect them to go back. There was no need to run in to get the moderator and take it back to his place for hiding.  If he took it to his place right away and police did search his place they would wonder why he had the moderator at his place and he would have had bigger problems.

He didn't expect they would be able to tell Sheila's blood was inside and that thus it was attached during the murders.  He didn't understand the forensic possibilities.  He felt putting it away and saying the gun didn't have it attached was good enough.

Are you saying that the blood in the moderator was not visible to the naked eye? It does sound far-fetched for him to leave it there in situ when he could have disposed of it in a million places and not hidden it at the Maida Vale flat.

[guest2181]

Are you saying that the blood in the moderator was not visible to the naked eye? It does sound far-fetched for him to leave it there in situ when he could have disposed of it in a million places and not hidden it at the Maida Vale flat.

If it was missing, would that not have raised suspicion anyway?

[Patti]

Are you saying that the blood in the moderator was not visible to the naked eye? It does sound far-fetched for him to leave it there in situ when he could have disposed of it in a million places and not hidden it at the Maida Vale flat.

I think what he means Steve is that in 2002 there were no longer any blood inside the moderator that was visable to the naked eye...

[scipio_usmc]

How did the blood of three people on the same baffle?  What are the chances of that?

Was the whole purpose of telling the police he had received a call from his father also bogus? Did he figure no one would find out?....Yet he states clearly to Jones why don't you trace the call....Are you saying that he knew that the call could not be traced? No google in those days....Nor did anyone prove he had made enquires in order to establish that.

Such a planned crime was it not? 

The only blood established as being inside was Sheila's.  The DNA was not blood based and at any rate the baffles were DNA tested in batches.  Batch A baffles 1-7. Batch B baffles 8-12, Batch C baffles 13-17. There is no way to know which baffle within the batch the DNA was even found on. It is possible June's DNA was found on different baffle than the DNA of the unknown minor contributor.

IF multiple victims suffer contact wounds that result in drawback in the same shooting episode then the chance of their blood mixing is extremely likely because the vibrations would mix their blood together.   The main variable is whether they would suffer drawback as well. That is the most important factor.  The only wound of June that even had a remote chance of being a contact wound was her shot between the eyes according to the medical evidence but it was viewed as unlikely and indeed her blood spatter got on the door so it wasn't a contact wound because if it were her blood would not have gotten on the door.  So there were no wounds on June that would result in drawback that is the thing that precludes her blood being mixed with Sheila's- the fact her blood would not be able to reach any of the baffles.

Nor did Nevill have any contact wounds.  His head shots were several inches away but that's not going to result in drawback. So his blood would no get inside deep enough to touch a baffle.  That is why Sheila's blood didn't mix with their blood. 

Backspatter results in blood spraying inside at all different angles that is why Sheila's blood was found on 8 baffles in a row.  If it just went in 1 direction if could not get behind each successive baffle.  Thus if multiple victims are shot at contact range in areas where blood will end up squirting in the weapon naturally some of the blood is going to overlap with blood of other victims- it is highly likely this will happen.  If one victim had very little blood going inside then naturally that would reduce the chances of the blood mixing while more blood increases the chance.  But the blood that mixes would intimately mix and the scientists would be able to tell it was a mixture.

I get criticized for long posts but I am trying to explain the issues involved in full so that people can hopefully end up understanding every aspect.

[scipio_usmc]

Are you saying that the blood in the moderator was not visible to the naked eye? It does sound far-fetched for him to leave it there in situ when he could have disposed of it in a million places and not hidden it at the Maida Vale flat.

If he stole the moderator to throw away that would be highly suspicious.  In contrast leaving it in the closet he assumed they would just overlook it since he said it wasn't attached.  He didn't know they could figure out the blood inside was Sheila's and figure out that it could only get there as a result of her being shot at contact range with it. 

Look at Ann's reaction when she saw it, she figured it was just animal blood or something that was innocently transferred while touching it with a bloody hand or shooting an animal.  She had no idea about drawback and that they would be able to determine it was Sheila's blood and that it got there from drawback while her fatal shot was fired at contact range.

People keep assuming that just because he planned out his attack that means Jeremy developed great forensic knowledge.  It is plainly obvious he didn't know about drawback, that they would be able to figure out it was Sheila's blood and the implications of such.  You are looking in hindsight and saying he should have known though if not for this case you wouldn't likely have ever heard of drawback and wouldn't know what it is either.

The blood in the opening wasn't type tested it was just tested to determine if it was human blood. The flake between baffle 1 and 2 and the blood on the baffles is what was type tested and screwed him because that blood couldn't get inside by any means other than drawback.  Cutting herself and touching the opening can get a drop near the opening but would not result in it getting on the baffles.  That is what was so important. That is what made the case and he had no clue about any of it. It didn't ever cross his mind. 

[scipio_usmc]

I don't know Hartley, but you would think if he had planned this for several months he would have memorized the sequence of events...

Of course it sounds better to say that he called Julie after he had called the police, but he would not commit to that, he told Jones he was unsure and that he could not remember...

To me he was not well rehearsed or was he telling the truth, that he could not remember....He did keep saying to Jones that his first statement would be more reliable. 

1) Did he even pay his own phone bill or did Nevill pay that too?  He might not have even known that a phone bill didn't list the calls because he might never have seen one.

2) Even if he knew they were not itemized he still might have thought that the phone company would be able to tell when and to where a call was made.  Many people were surprised to learn the phone company couldn't tell such and he could very well be one of them. 

If he knew there was not going to be any record of a call then he obviously would not have bothered calling his own house.  But if he thought that there would be a record of the call then quite obviously he dialed his own number.  We have no way to know which is the case because we have no way to get into Jeremy's head and to find out what he thought in regard to phone company technology.

3) Just because he was planning things out doesn't mean he would plan every minute detail of what he was going to say or that he would remember everything he wanted to say and not slip up.  I have prepped witness for depositions and court for weeks,  went over everything with them and then they get nervous and are like deer in the headlights and end up saying things that are nothing like what they ever said before.  Afterwards they told me I was crazy and denied saying things that they said and only after the seeing the tape (depositions are often videotaped now) did they realize I was right. People make mistakes like this despite trying to tell the truth.  It is not an easy thing to competently lie without an error and foresee everything so plan for every minute detail.

[Patti]

The only blood established as being inside was Sheila's.  The DNA was not blood based and at any rate the baffles were DNA tested in batches.  Batch A baffles 1-7. Batch B baffles 8-12, Batch C baffles 13-17. There is no way to know which baffle within the batch the DNA was even found on. It is possible June's DNA was found on different baffle than the DNA of the unknown minor contributor.

IF multiple victims suffer contact wounds that result in drawback in the same shooting episode then the chance of their blood mixing is extremely likely because the vibrations would mix their blood together.   The main variable is whether they would suffer drawback as well. That is the most important factor.  The only wound of June that even had a remote chance of being a contact wound was her shot between the eyes according to the medical evidence but it was viewed as unlikely and indeed her blood spatter got on the door so it wasn't a contact wound because if it were her blood would not have gotten on the door.  So there were no wounds on June that would result in drawback that is the thing that precludes her blood being mixed with Sheila's- the fact her blood would not be able to reach any of the baffles.

Nor did Nevill have any contact wounds.  His head shots were several inches away but that's not going to result in drawback. So his blood would no get inside deep enough to touch a baffle.  That is why Sheila's blood didn't mix with their blood. 

Backspatter results in blood spraying inside at all different angles that is why Sheila's blood was found on 8 baffles in a row.  If it just went in 1 direction if could not get behind each successive baffle.  Thus if multiple victims are shot at contact range in areas where blood will end up squirting in the weapon naturally some of the blood is going to overlap with blood of other victims- it is highly likely this will happen.  If one victim had very little blood going inside then naturally that would reduce the chances of the blood mixing while more blood increases the chance.  But the blood that mixes would intimately mix and the scientists would be able to tell it was a mixture.

I get criticized for long posts but I am trying to explain the issues involved in full so that people can hopefully end up understanding every aspect.

You are being absolutely biased and contradictorily in your analysis. 

Going back to the trial the crowns case was that the blood inside the silencer belonged to Sheila.  That blood group belonged to half the population of the UK.

Many years later science had a breakthrough in DNA profiling.

In 2002 the court more or less accepted that the DNA found in the silencer might have belonged to Sheila.  This is the point that you fail to ignore.

You use the word minor as being a contributor.....are you suggesting that the unknown DNA belonged to one of the children? This lets you down Scip....for we do not know who this DNA belongs to and no one had made any effort to find out.

Yes your posts are long and drawn out, but that is because you wonder off the point in question. However, I do take on board what you say, but have to read 4 paragraphs before I get to the point of discussion....

[scipio_usmc]

You are being absolutely biased and contradictorily in your analysis. 

No I am being objective and fully accurate.  The prosecution removed all visible blood from the moderator in 1985. Defense expert Lincoln removed all invisible blood from the moderator in 1986. 

ONLY DNA testing the blood that was removed in 1985 and 1986 would reveal whose DNA that blood belonged to.  Testing the moderator subsequent to this would AT MOST reveal whether any blood still remained or it had all been removed.  In 1999 they tested the moderator for the presence of blood it tested negative thus all blood had been removed in 1985 and 1986.

The DNA testing of the moderator was thus worthless.  Jeremy's own expert is the one who contended the DNA found inside was the result of contamination and was not blood based.

June's DNA was transferred to at least 1 baffle in each of the testing batches as a result of contamination.  There was at least 1 minor contributor in each batch but no way to know if the minor contributor for each batch was the same person or a different person.  There could have been 1, 2 or 3 different minor contributors.

They tested 7 other areas beyond the baffles.  Sheila was the major contributor in 5 of the 7 batches and 1 or each of her sons the major contributor in the other 2.  There was at least 1 minor contributor in each of the 7 batches and each could have been the same or someone different.  There could have been 4 major contributors and 10 minor contributors.     

Going back to the trial the crowns case was that the blood inside the silencer belonged to Sheila.  That blood group belonged to half the population of the UK.

Many years later science had a breakthrough in DNA profiling.

In 2002 the court more or less accepted that the DNA found in the silencer might have belonged to Sheila.  This is the point that you fail to ignore.

You use the word minor as being a contributor.....are you suggesting that the unknown DNA belonged to one of the children? This lets you down Scip....for we do not know who this DNA belongs to and no one had made any effort to find out.

Yes your posts are long and drawn out, but that is because you wonder of the point in question. However, I do take on board what you say, but have to read 4 paragraphs before I get to the point of discussion....

There is no way to find out who the contributors were and no need to even try.  You keep ignoring:

1) the DNA was NOT BLOOD BASED it was the result of contamination.  It is totally IRRELEVANT whose DNA was transferred inside the baffle through contamination.  Such is not relevant to the murders

2) Even if some blood had still been inside the moderator that would not in any way be able to help acquit Jeremy UNLESS it were Boutflour's DNA.  That would help support the notion that Boutflour's blood had been planted inside in an effort to frame Jeremy.  That still might not have been enough it is hard to know what the judges would have made of such. The only DNA test that could have determined whose blood was removed in 1985 and 1986 would be DNA testing that blood that was removed in 1985 and 1986 but it was all expended in testing and nothing was saved so there was no blood left to DNA test.

Do you understand that DNA is present in hair, skin, bone, saliva, and semen- not merely blood.  To determine DNA is blood based requires doing a test that proves there is blood present on the exact area that is then DNA tested.  People touching the moderator was able to contaminate the moderator with DNA. DNA precautions were not taken when the moderator was tested in 1985 and 1986 because DNA wasn't in use. The prosecution and lab experts who were getting tiny traces of DNA on their gloves etc were not worried about transferring tiny trace amounts of DNA to the moderator.

Even though we know about DNA the lab in the Kercher murder case ended up transferring a tiny drop of Kercher's DNA to a knife taken from Sollecito's house.  That knife tested negative from blood it was not blood based DNA it was from contamination.  It thus proved nothing just like the contamination in this case proves nothing. 

10 areas were DNA tested and each area had one major contributor and at least 1 minor contributor:

1) June + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
2) June + at least another male (could be any male victim or a non-victim)
3) June + at least another male (could be any male victim or a non-victim)
4) Sheila + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
5) Sheila + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
6) Sheila + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
7) Sheila + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
8 ) Sheila + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
9) Nicolas or Daniel + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
10) Nicolas or Daniel + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)

So it could just be as little as 4 victims as the donors or could be as many as all 5 victims plus 9 other people. There could be as few as 4 donors or could be at least 14 donors. There is no way to know since the minor contributor profiles were so small and so incomplete.  Even if it mattered there would be no way to figure out who those contributors were but it makes no difference anyway for the reasons I already explained. 
 

[Patti]

No I am being objective and fully accurate.  The prosecution removed all visible blood from the moderator in 1985. Defense expert Lincoln removed all invisible blood from the moderator in 1986. 

But you are not! You have agreed with what I have said and that is there was no visible blood in 2002 because it was removed by previous swabbing.

ONLY DNA testing the blood that was removed in 1985 and 1986 would reveal whose DNA that blood belonged to.  Testing the moderator subsequent to this would AT MOST reveal whether any blood still remained or it had all been removed.  In 1999 they tested the moderator for the presence of blood it tested negative thus all blood had been removed in 1985 and 1986.

I have told you that the COA 2002 excepted that the DNA taken MAY have belonged to Sheila.  The crown case fails on this point. 

The DNA testing of the moderator was thus worthless. I totally agree Jeremy's own expert is the one who contended the DNA found inside was the result of contamination and was not blood based.

June's DNA was transferred to at least 1 baffle in each of the testing batches as a result of contamination.  There was at least 1 minor contributor in each batch but no way to know if the minor contributor for each batch was the same person or a different person.  There could have been 1, 2 or 3 different minor contributors. But was June's DNA present as a result of one her family handling the silencer?

They tested 7 other areas beyond the baffles.  Sheila was the major contributor in 5 of the 7 batches and 1 or each of her sons the major contributor in the other 2.  There was at least 1 minor contributor in each of the 7 batches and each could have been the same or someone different.  There could have been 4 major contributors and 10 minor contributors.    I do not think that is correct and you might be clutching at straws here.


There is no way to find out who the contributors were and no need to even try.  You keep ignoring:

1) the DNA was NOT BLOOD BASED it was the result of contamination.  It is totally IRRELEVANT whose DNA was transferred inside the baffle through contamination.  Such is not relevant to the murders

2) Even if some blood had still been inside the moderator that would not in any way be able to help acquit Jeremy UNLESS it were Boutflour's DNA.  That would help support the notion that Boutflour's blood had been planted inside in an effort to frame Jeremy.  That still might not have been enough it is hard to know what the judges would have made of such. The only DNA test that could have determined whose blood was removed in 1985 and 1986 would be DNA testing that blood that was removed in 1985 and 1986 but it was all expended in testing and nothing was saved so there was no blood left to DNA test.

Do you understand that DNA is present in hair, skin, bone, saliva, and semen- not merely blood.  To determine DNA is blood based requires doing a test that proves there is blood present on the exact area that is then DNA tested.  People touching the moderator was able to contaminate the moderator with DNA. DNA precautions were not taken when the moderator was tested in 1985 and 1986 because DNA wasn't in use. The prosecution and lab experts who were getting tiny traces of DNA on their gloves etc were not worried about transferring tiny trace amounts of DNA to the moderator.

Even though we know about DNA the lab in the Kercher murder case ended up transferring a tiny drop of Kercher's DNA to a knife taken from Sollecito's house.  That knife tested negative from blood it was not blood based DNA it was from contamination.  It thus proved nothing just like the contamination in this case proves nothing. 

10 areas were DNA tested and each area had one major contributor and at least 1 minor contributor:

1) June + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
2) June + at least another male (could be any male victim or a non-victim)
3) June + at least another male (could be any male victim or a non-victim)
4) Sheila + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
5) Sheila + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
6) Sheila + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
7) Sheila + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
8 ) Sheila + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
9) Nicolas or Daniel + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)
10) Nicolas or Daniel + at least another (could be any other victim or a non-victim)

So it could just be as little as 4 victims as the donors or could be as many as all 5 victims plus 9 other people. There could be as few as 4 donors or could be at least 14 donors. There is no way to know since the minor contributor profiles were so small and so incomplete.  Even if it mattered there would be no way to figure out who those contributors were but it makes no difference anyway for the reasons I already explained. 
 

The rest of your post is copied and pasted from other threads. Can we stick to one point and not 50 thousand please...I only have eyes for one. 

[scipio_usmc]

The rest of your post is copied and pasted from other threads. Can we stick to one point and not 50 thousand please...I only have eyes for one. 

But was June's DNA present as a result of one her family handling the silencer?

I didn't cut and paste anything I typed it all for this thread.

It doesn't matter whether June's DNA was transferred there by Jeremy/Nevill prior to the murders or by someone after.  It has no bearing on the blood evidence.

I do not think that is correct and you might be clutching at straws here.

I'm not clutching at straws I accurately explained the results for the sake of accuracy.  It has no bearing on the case at all it was for the sake of people understanding the DNA findings merely.

I posted to you the field of possibilities with respect to the major and minor contributors for the ten areas.

These are the most significant excerpts from the 2002 COA decision concerning such:

"Since the CCRC referred this case to the court, further DNA testing has taken place of other parts of the moderator. Seven swabbings have been taken from internal parts of the moderator apart from the baffles. All seven results indicated that DNA from more than one person was present. The results were complex and incomplete and it was not possible to determine how many people had contributed to the DNA from the mixture. ... When comparisons were possible, components matching Sheila Caffell's DNA profile were detected in five of these seven results. The other two results also contained components which matched those of Sheila Caffell, but not at all of the ten areas of DNA tested where information was available for comparison. Some of the components detected did not match the profile of Sheila Caffell or the Caffell twins."

Sheila was the major donor in 5 of the 7 batches, someone related to her were the donors in the other 2 batches.  The major donor in one batch could have been a minor donor in another.  Thus as few as 4 people could be the donors.  There are at least 3 major donors and as many as 4.  The minor donor in each batch could be someone different or could all be the same there is no way to know.

Whether the contamination occurred before or after the murders makes no difference because it is not blood based and it doesn't matter whether a donor worked in a lab, worked for the company that manufactured the moderator, was a juror, or was a victim.

 

 
 

[Jane]

I don't know Hartley, but you would think if he had planned this for several months he would have memorized the sequence of events...

Of course it sounds better to say that he called Julie after he had called the police, but he would not commit to that, he told Jones he was unsure and that he could not remember...

To me he was not well rehearsed or was he telling the truth, that he could not remember....He did keep saying to Jones that his first statement would be more reliable. 

It isn't possible to plan with finite detail, the demise of five people, in the same way that a jewellery heist can be planned. MOST important -and without this the murders can't happen- is to arrange for all those who have been chosen to be in the same place, something not necessarily in the would-be murderer's control, he/she must therefore be prepared to grab the chance when the opportunity presents itself.

Jeremy was as well rehearsed as it was possible for him to be. Sheila was staying from Sunday till Thursday(?) so time was pressing -"Tonight's the night"(?) Of course he would have had the basic outline of a plan, but THAT didn't go to order -he wouldn't have been prepared for having to fight with his father or needing to shoot Sheila twice- so MUCH of what occurred was ad hoc.

You, and other members of the Innocent Party, seem to be saying that because he didn't do/plan for A, B, and C he couldn't have done it, but the chances are A, B, and C couldn't BE planned for. He knew his way in and out. He knew where he allegedly left the gun. He was fairly confident that the boys would be in bed. Other than that he had to play it by ear.

[maggie]

It isn't possible to plan with finite detail, the demise of five people, in the same way that a jewellery heist can be planned. MOST important -and without this the murders can't happen- is to arrange for all those who have been chosen to be in the same place, something not necessarily in the would-be murderer's control, he/she must therefore be prepared to grab the chance when the opportunity presents itself.

Jeremy was as well rehearsed as it was possible for him to be. Sheila was staying from Sunday till Thursday(?) so time was pressing -"Tonight's the night"(?) Of course he would have had the basic outline of a plan, but THAT didn't go to order -he wouldn't have been prepared for having to fight with his father or needing to shoot Sheila twice- so MUCH of what occurred was ad hoc.

You, and other members of the Innocent Party, seem to be saying that because he didn't do/plan for A, B, and C he couldn't have done it, but the chances are A, B, and C couldn't BE planned for. He knew his way in and out. He knew where he allegedly left the gun. He was fairly confident that the boys would be in bed. Other than that he had to play it by ear.

Think some people remember JM claimed JB had told her he planned 'the perfect crime' I agree you can't plan anything apart from how to enter and exit the house etc. Any other part of any plan would always be subject to so many possibilities it was impossible to plan anything more, which means he climbed through a window in the dark at some time in the early morning ..... literally climbing into the unknown and putting himself into a position of massive risk. Everything was built on chance, hardly a 'perfect crime'.

[Jane]

Think some people remember JM claimed JB had told her he planned 'the perfect crime' I agree you can't plan anything apart from how to enter and exit the house etc. Any other part of any plan would always be subject to so many possibilities it was impossible to plan anything more, which means he climbed through a window in the dark at some time in the early morning ..... literally climbing into the unknown and putting himself into a position of massive risk. Everything was built on chance, hardly a 'perfect crime'.

But it isn't and never HAS been about what you, I and others think of as being "the perfect crime." SO often here I read that "Jeremy would NEVER have done............because..............." which is putting OUR interpretation onto it. This whole exercise is what JEREMY thought -BELIEVED- he was capable of and the greater credence we give to him being a psychopath the more it becomes clear that he believed he'd nailed it. Climbing through a window into the unknown is of no moment to a risk taker.The greater the chance, the tastier the reward, the greater the buzz -"LOOK what I went through to achieve this!!!"

[maggie]

But it isn't and never HAS been about what you, I and others think of as being "the perfect crime." SO often here I read that "Jeremy would NEVER have done............because..............." which is putting OUR interpretation onto it. This whole exercise is what JEREMY thought -BELIEVED- he was capable of and the greater credence we give to him being a psychopath the more it becomes clear that he believed he'd nailed it. Climbing through a window into the unknown is of no moment to a risk taker.The greater the chance, the tastier the reward, the greater the buzz -"LOOK what I went through to achieve this!!!"

I know it's not about what I think, I was speaking about what Julie Mugford claimed. The perfect crime he planned for a year, I was agreeing with you ie. You cannot plan anything when you are reliant on the chance behaviours of 5 other  people, the reason I say scenarios are pointless. Anything could have happened after he climbed through that window...... even to the possibility that Nevill may have shot him. 
I know psychopaths tend to be risk takers but it was a hell of a gamble and impossible to plan. More likely to be a spur of the moment crime  imo.

[Patti]

But it isn't and never HAS been about what you, I and others think of as being "the perfect crime." SO often here I read that "Jeremy would NEVER have done............because..............." which is putting OUR interpretation onto it. This whole exercise is what JEREMY thought -BELIEVED- he was capable of and the greater credence we give to him being a psychopath the more it becomes clear that he believed he'd nailed it. Climbing through a window into the unknown is of no moment to a risk taker.The greater the chance, the tastier the reward, the greater the buzz -"LOOK what I went through to achieve this!!!"

I don't think its fair to call Jeremy a psychopath without knowing the full facts of an evaluation April or tag him with being one.  One does not become a psychopath over night, it has many contributing factors over a period of time.

Those that say he is guilty say he planned the murders,. so in effect he planned the phone call, therefore he must have remembered that.  He is hardly going to say he can't remember as apposed to yes I called Julie after I called the police.  This minor detail took 4 pages up on his statement where Jones tried to put words into his mouth by trying to get Jeremy to say that he called Julie before he called the police. This same officer went out of his way to prove he called Julie before he called the police.  So much so that he went to visit the girls the following year and concluded that the clock had been set 10 minutes on so therefore introduced another time of 3am which did not and never has fitted with the none of the calls that were made that night.  One has to look back at original statements to see the times that people had given which all matched the time that Jeremy had first stated in his original statement.  It was Jones that moved the goal posts, in fact it was Jones that challenged everyones times....I ask was this done to fit Jeremy to the crime, or was everyone changing their original times to suit.  I am so suspicious of that man...I know it is wrong of me to say that, but I feel something is not right.