what if the motives were right - but the truth was not?

[Jan]

What if the family truly believed JB was guilty and forced the police to change tract as they moved their complaint up the line of power?

what if Julie ( after being rejected ) was out for revenge and the police told her they knew JB was guilty but had no proof - so they would help her ( avoid prosecution) if she helped them ?

What if EP thought - we may have made a mistake - how the hell do we get out of the mess?


could the motives have been valid - but the truth was they were right in the first place?


If possible can you discuss - looking at both sides of the possibility - after all believing someone is guilty does not make it a fact ? And if you don't have proof does "twisting" the truth make it morally right?

[Patti]

What if the family truly believed JB was guilty and forced the police to change tract as they moved their complaint up the line of power?

what if Julie ( after being rejected ) was out for revenge and the police told her they knew JB was guilty but had no proof - so they would help her ( avoid prosecution) if she helped them ?

What if EP thought - we may have made a mistake - how the hell do we get out of the mess?


could the motives have been valid - but the truth was they were right in the first place?


If possible can you discuss - looking at both sides of the possibility - after all believing someone is guilty does not make it a fact ? And if you don't have proof does "twisting" the truth make it morally right?

I believe the family believed he was guilty from the onset., They did not believe that Sheila could have killed her family for they believed that she was not familiar with guns.  The family also believed that Jeremy's behavior of going out on the town and taking holidays was not the behavior they would expect someone to behave having lost his whole family.  To be honest I can relate to that Jan.  On the other hand he was high on drugs at the time and was probably influenced by his friends edging him on to enjoy himself rather that grieve.  I think I would have questioned the way he was behaving too.

Facts are he is convicted of the crimes.  The moderator is the key to all of this.  Yet there is no proof that it was on the rifle, nor is there any proof it wasn't.  The paint sample could have got on the moderator at any time during the year.  I just find it hard to believe that three spots of blood landed in the same spot to cause a flake....There is no way I think the family had anything to do with fitting Jeremy up at all. They believed what they did and that is that...

Now of course modern science has revealed that it may have been Sheila's DNA in the moderator. May being not sure. 

Fact is that it is June's DNA inside the moderator and no matter how you look at it, it is what it is....How it got there could have two tales...Jeremy is indeed guilty or someone planted the blood inside the moderator....I doubt even contamination could cause blood to have gotten between two baffles....The other scenario is the test firing....

[scipio_usmc]

What if the family truly believed JB was guilty and forced the police to change tract as they moved their complaint up the line of power?

what if Julie ( after being rejected ) was out for revenge and the police told her they knew JB was guilty but had no proof - so they would help her ( avoid prosecution) if she helped them ?

What if EP thought - we may have made a mistake - how the hell do we get out of the mess?


could the motives have been valid - but the truth was they were right in the first place?


If possible can you discuss - looking at both sides of the possibility - after all believing someone is guilty does not make it a fact ? And if you don't have proof does "twisting" the truth make it morally right?

The only way Jeremy is innocent is if evidence was doctored intentionally and Julie lied. There is no evidence to establish either though let alone both. Moreover, numerous unlikely things had to happen such as Nevill calling Jeremy, Jeremy calling Julie then looking up phone numbers and the killer using around 20 bullets from the supply in the kitchen but deciding to get at least 5 bullets from the closet instead of using all 25 from the kitchen supply. It's simply not credible that all these unlikely things happened.

[David1819]

What if the family truly believed JB was guilty and forced the police to change tract as they moved their complaint up the line of power?

what if Julie ( after being rejected ) was out for revenge and the police told her they knew JB was guilty but had no proof - so they would help her ( avoid prosecution) if she helped them ?

What if EP thought - we may have made a mistake - how the hell do we get out of the mess?


could the motives have been valid - but the truth was they were right in the first place?


If possible can you discuss - looking at both sides of the possibility - after all believing someone is guilty does not make it a fact ? And if you don't have proof does "twisting" the truth make it morally right?

Yes, the only way Jeremy can be innocent is if the extended family manufactured evidence and convinced the police to chance stance. It's an easy accusation to make but probably impossible to prove.

[susan]

Yes, the only way Jeremy can be innocent is if the extended family manufactured evidence and convinced the police to chance stance. It's an easy accusation to make but probably impossible to prove.

David if the evidence was manufactured it could be because the ones responsible knew he was guilty but had no evidence.

[lookout]

 Nobody " manufactured " evidence. Nor was anything planted. Both would have to be proved.

Jan,I am almost certain that the family were convinced that Jeremy murdered his family.It's human nature to think on those terms after hearing about his escapades of drink and debauchery and generally the high life. I'd probably think the same myself,as would thousands of others,but there were other foibles within the family that neither the relatives nor many in the world outside WHF would know about.

In this case,EP didn't know,or know anything about the family, so were working " blind ",but the relatives " knew",obviously ( and also knew of the land deal before Jeremy did ) except they only knew Jeremy as being a thorn in their sides,as well as the most hateful person that walked the earth. So that was off to a bad start as regards a character reference.

Julie did want revenge and wanted to show Jeremy that she meant business,but things went further than what she'd thought,so an outpouring of the conversations that took place over the time they were together,followed.
I know that over the years,life hasn't always been kind to JM and the years have brought uncertainty on more than one occasion because of that day at the trial.
I do think that between EP and JM,a " deal " was struck to avoid prosecution to JM,but as I've already said,it came at a price for JM and her husband, and the ball is in her court now,which is all I'm prepared to say on the matter.

One officer who was at the scene,who I do know of,knew that mistakes had been made,is 100% certain of Jeremy's innocence,but how would he feel if he opened up ? He knows what he's had to live with the same as JM and her husband,but at 30 years on,it's the thought of repercussions in keeping things quiet,plus a possible jail sentence.

What I've heard over recent months is far from moral.

[Caroline]

What if the family truly believed JB was guilty and forced the police to change tract as they moved their complaint up the line of power?

what if Julie ( after being rejected ) was out for revenge and the police told her they knew JB was guilty but had no proof - so they would help her ( avoid prosecution) if she helped them ?

What if EP thought - we may have made a mistake - how the hell do we get out of the mess?


could the motives have been valid - but the truth was they were right in the first place?


If possible can you discuss - looking at both sides of the possibility - after all believing someone is guilty does not make it a fact ? And if you don't have proof does "twisting" the truth make it morally right?

The truth is being twisted by the OS so it doesn't bode well. I'm not sure how you argue those questions from both sides and they all  reflect an 'innocent' Jeremy and lead to a conspiracy by the family and police.

What if - Jeremy is just guilty?

[lookout]

What if-----------he isn't ?

[Caroline]

What if-----------he isn't ?

If he was/is - he couldn't need to keep changing his story or seek out technicalities to make a desperate bid for freedom. There is only one truth and it doesn't change when you have a new idea about a CCRC submission!

[lookout]

If he was/is - he couldn't need to keep changing his story or seek out technicalities to make a desperate bid for freedom. There is only one truth and it doesn't change when you have a new idea about a CCRC submission!

He " changes his story " as he remembers it.I'd rather someone do that than to repeat and rattle it off parrot fashion. Nothing sinister in suddenly remembering something else,as it's only at a later date that people think more clearly about past events. Much the same as the brain's thinking in old age when one can remember vividly things from the past rather than last week.

[lookout]

 I rather fancy that Jeremy wasn't alone in changing what he'd said or written.

[Adam]

What if the family truly believed JB was guilty and forced the police to change tract as they moved their complaint up the line of power?

what if Julie ( after being rejected ) was out for revenge and the police told her they knew JB was guilty but had no proof - so they would help her ( avoid prosecution) if she helped them ?

What if EP thought - we may have made a mistake - how the hell do we get out of the mess?


could the motives have been valid - but the truth was they were right in the first place?


If possible can you discuss - looking at both sides of the possibility - after all believing someone is guilty does not make it a fact ? And if you don't have proof does "twisting" the truth make it morally right?

Jan you have to stop supporting Jeremy.

You know he is guilty and refused to say how Sheila could have committed the crime. Despite all the crime scene evidence being available.

[Caroline]

He " changes his story " as he remembers it.I'd rather someone do that than to repeat and rattle it off parrot fashion. Nothing sinister in suddenly remembering something else,as it's only at a later date that people think more clearly about past events. Much the same as the brain's thinking in old age when one can remember vividly things from the past rather than last week.

So he remembers the STORY, 30 years after the event BETTER than hours and days later??  . Memory fades with time Lookout. I'm not talking about remembering 'something else' - the time of his fathers phone call doesn't alter because he suddenly wants up to believe Nevill called the police - it changed to fit in this call - he HAS to change the times or it doesn't make sense but it also doesn't make sense, if he has to change what he originally said.

[lookout]

Being a more understanding person------------it does to me.

[Jan]

The truth is being twisted by the OS so it doesn't bode well. I'm not sure how you argue those questions from both sides and they all  reflect an 'innocent' Jeremy and lead to a conspiracy by the family and police.

What if - Jeremy is just guilty?

Of course that is a possibility which is why I asked that it be looked at from both sides

We don't have to spell that out because he is in jail.

The point that I was making is that the family could have genuinely been convinced he was guilty and by embellishing certain points they felt they were morally doing the correct thing - they could have been correct and they in that case were more clever than the police.

But that does not mean they were correct.

Julie - I really do not believe in the beginning she did think JB did it - I don't buy the excuses for not going to the police straight away and the 32 interviews were "coaching" . Could it be that she was persuaded by the police to "do the right thing" and put him away , rather than revenge ?

Still might mean she was right to do so and he is in the right place - and morally some people could think that is justifiable - but should lies put a man in jail?

Again and again we come back to the silencer its the only concrete thing there is , if you believe any of the families or julies testimony was only based on a "ring of truth" Sorry Adam pinched your favourite quote.