How would you react ?

[Jan]

Why wouldn't it... He said himself he 'should have been an actor...'

did he - or was that just "hearsay" ?

depends on who you believe I suppose.

[Stephanie]

Sound of breaking glass would travel too - you just asked "who would have heard."

We had this argument in another case I'm familiar with. According to around a dozen neighbours they heard noises at around 2am. The murder occurred sometime after. 5.30am - not one statement/witness heard the sound of breaking glass.

[Caroline]

did he - or was that just "hearsay" ?

depends on who you believe I suppose.

Yes, everyone else - or just Jeremy?

[Jane]

The account of that phonecall cannot be verbatim, since it does not make sense.

OK If we say that THAT and every other piece of evidence given against him is a lie and such can be proved, whilst it MIGHT set him free, it won't make him innocent. What would be preferable? To let him out on a technicality but still having the guilty verdict hanging over him or leaving well enough alone?

[Jan]

Did Jeremy refute what she'd said? Lookout, in order for him to be innocent one has to attach the status of LIAR to each and EVERY person who had a hand in his conviction, each of whom will have needed to have had a different agenda which is part of what doesn't add up.

I agree with you in one respect - however some of the people she testified certainly changed their stories . And that does not add up either.


I have said before its obvious from Day one the family thought he was guilty and were not going to give up - and if he is ( I know in the eyes of the law he is) Then they are to be congratulated for their tenacity in the light of the actions of the police who were apparently totally inept. But if their belief was based on an error of judgement and the "truth" was embellished to get a conviction - then obviously the outcome is a mistake.

I don't know them well enough to judge .

[Alias]

OK If we say that THAT and every other piece of evidence given against him is a lie and such can be proved, whilst it MIGHT set him free, it won't make him innocent. What would be preferable? To let him out on a technicality but still having the guilty verdict hanging over him or leaving well enough alone?

Especially that snippet of Julie´s account does not make the least bit sense. Some words are missing, I am almost a 100% sure of that.

[Adam]

Make up your mind - what situation is he trying to create?

A siege with hostages - or the family  seated round a table with Sheila just holding a gun?

My mind was made up. But Nugs has got me all confused.

Saying Jeremy phoned the forth furthest away police station, rather than 999 because he wanted a certain type of police reaction. Although Jeremy has never said this.

[Jan]

Yes, everyone else - or just Jeremy?

Well people should not lie to the police in their statements - ever - then we would not be in this position would we?

[Jane]

If you are threatened on your life, if you had a chance, you would do anything to attract help and not think about the distance to the closest neighbours. IMO

Why do you not apply that logic to Jeremy when he idled away time looking for local police numbers instead of calling 999. They were family, not just neighbours.

[Adam]

I agree with you in one respect - however some of the people she testified certainly changed their stories . And that does not add up either.


I have said before its obvious from Day one the family thought he was guilty and were not going to give up - and if he is ( I know in the eyes of the law he is) Then they are to be congratulated for their tenacity in the light of the actions of the police who were apparently totally inept. But if their belief was based on an error of judgement and the "truth" was embellished to get a conviction - then obviously the outcome is a mistake.

I don't know them well enough to judge .

The police were not inept. They had to go along with Jeremy's version until the evidence had been processed.

[lookout]

Who would have been passing by the house at WHF at that time? They would literally have been on WHF property. He left by the window so that it would LOOK like an inside job.

The guy who was walking his dog heard a shot,which must have been well after Neville had been out with his dogs,as he'd normally leave the farmhouse between 10 and 10.30 pm.

I wouldn't " buy " leaving by the window if I thought he was guilty.There'd be neither the point,nor the sense in doing that,and besides,you've just said yourself that nobody would have been around,so why not leave by the front door to save squeezing through a window which would trap any fibres and leave all kinds of evidence ? As it happened,there was no proof that anyone got through any window.

[Adam]

We had this argument in another case I'm familiar with. According to around a dozen neighbours they heard noises at around 2am. The murder occurred sometime after. 5.30am - not one statement/witness heard the sound of breaking glass.

What breaking glass would they hear ? No windows were broken.

[Stephanie]

We had this argument in another case I'm familiar with. According to around a dozen neighbours they heard noises at around 2am. The murder occurred sometime after. 5.30am - not one statement/witness heard the sound of breaking glass.

What breaking glass would they hear ? No windows were broken.

[Jane]

I agree with you in one respect - however some of the people she testified certainly changed their stories . And that does not add up either.


I have said before its obvious from Day one the family thought he was guilty and were not going to give up - and if he is ( I know in the eyes of the law he is) Then they are to be congratulated for their tenacity in the light of the actions of the police who were apparently totally inept. But if their belief was based on an error of judgement and the "truth" was embellished to get a conviction - then obviously the outcome is a mistake.

I don't know them well enough to judge .

My feelings about the family's relationship with him are well documented. I haven't changed my mind about that. MUCH as I'd love to believe RWB would have single handedly got him convicted -such I believe was his loathing of him- I DO think that they were genuine in their belief that he was guilty. All of which could be more emotional than logical.

[Alias]

Why do you not apply that logic to Jeremy when he idled away time looking for local police numbers instead of calling 999. They were family, not just neighbours.

If he is innocent, and I do say if, the seriousness of the situation clearly hadn´t sunk in.