The meeting with The Sun newspaper:

[Caroline]

You'll find a list on the O S site. We've also had AA on here who's known him for years. It depends where you look. I realise it's limited for those who KNOW he's guilty.
I don't believe that the testimonials were even looked at in court,let alone read out. There are plenty who do believe he's innocent and has suffered a terrible MOJ. Don't you think it odd that so much is surrounding this case since 1985 ? Haven't you ever questioned why that is ?
Of course you're entitled to your own, as well as others,opinions,the same as I am to mine,but finding proof of his innocence is sparse in comparison to the TONS of " proof " of his guilt,because the media,internet etc have force-fed dodgy facts which people choose to believe as the truth.It's up to them of course. The truth is difficult when there's nothing to go on except word of mouth.

It's not rubbish that a crime scene gets disturbed by re-enacting the crime.How else are the police going to try and find out what happened ? I'm sure they're not going to stand there scratching their heads.
EP would have imagined what had happened using staging,moving various objects,etc.
Do you think that they'd have left Neville as he was found ? No,they'd move him to a more" comfortable" position,which wouldn't have been how he was found initially.

The list of testimonials have VERY FEW people who actually knew him before the murders. I remember someone else brining this up and managed to mention only 3. Not exactly an endorsement is it? Whereas there are many who describe him in less than a positive light. Some of those helped convict him. The reason why there is so much more evidence to show that he's guilty - is because he's guilty. You are (as you say) entitled to believe that he's not, but as you have just admitted that the evidence points to guilt - I don't understand you position - especially when it's the OS that is FULL of dodgy info (I won't call them facts). Once you scrape away the rubbish and conspiracy theories, you're left with the only plausible outcome - it was Jeremy.

It is against all the rules of forensic science to tamper with the crime scene and the reason why two sets of pictures (actual scene and staged) wouldn't be taken is because it could be later claimed that some of the staged pictures were actually the original pictures and used in underhanded ways. They don't move anything because they need the scene to be left as the killer left it, not rearranging this to make a 'best guess' of what might of happened. 

[lookout]

The list of testimonials have VERY FEW people who actually knew him before the murders. I remember someone else brining this up and managed to mention only 3. Not exactly an endorsement is it? Whereas there are many who describe him in less than a positive light. Some of those helped convict him. The reason why there is so much more evidence to show that he's guilty - is because he's guilty. You are (as you say) entitled to believe that he's not, but as you have just admitted that the evidence points to guilt - I don't understand you position - especially when it's the OS that is FULL of dodgy info (I won't call them facts). Once you scrape away the rubbish and conspiracy theories, you're left with the only plausible outcome - it was Jeremy.

It is against all the rules of forensic science to tamper with the crime scene and the reason why two sets of pictures (actual scene and staged) wouldn't be taken is because it could be later claimed that some of the staged pictures were actually the original pictures and used in underhanded ways. They don't move anything because they need the scene to be left as the killer left it, not rearranging this to make a 'best guess' of what might of happened.

The list is nothing to go by,as there must have been others who knew him enough to write an appraisal.
It's this " less than positive light " which is unfair,as unless you know someone personally,you can't judge them enough to have staked your life on the fact that " they could kill/murder ". 
I think Jeremy was rubbish with a rifle as it sounded as if he used one for amusement/target practice rather than shooting vermin,or HUMANS.       Where have I said he's guilty ?

I don't remember reading about a forensic scientist having been present at the scene.Who was it ?

Blimey,even the judge said it could have been either Jeremy or Sheila. He wasn't there,the same as nobody else was,except EP who for some unknown reason changed tack,and this has got to be the crux-----------not the silencer or anything else,but the reason for the change. It's that change that should have been investigated.

[Jane]

The list is nothing to go by,as there must have been others who knew him enough to write an appraisal.
It's this " less than positive light " which is unfair,as unless you know someone personally,you can't judge them enough to have staked your life on the fact that " they could kill/murder ". 
I think Jeremy was rubbish with a rifle as it sounded as if he used one for amusement/target practice rather than shooting vermin,or HUMANS.       Where have I said he's guilty ?

I don't remember reading about a forensic scientist having been present at the scene.Who was it ?

Blimey,even the judge said it could have been either Jeremy or Sheila. He wasn't there,the same as nobody else was,except EP who for some unknown reason changed tack,and this has got to be the crux-----------not the silencer or anything else,but the reason for the change. It's that change that should have been investigated.

Lookout, as you may expect, because I live in the area, I know people who had dealings with Jeremy. Those I know who were friends of June and Nevill have said that Jeremy and Sheila were never mentioned -what ever it was that they were rumoured to be doing it was a question of holding their breath and thanking God it wasn't their children who were said to be doing it- that being said, it was Jeremy who had the dubious reputation locally because Sheila wasn't around as much.

Of those I know who knew him, only one -a co in-law with a cousin and a vicar- believes him to be innocent. That the others didn't like him, doesn't, IMO, make him a murderer, BUT it has to give us some insight to his personality. Mostly, at that stage, it sounds as if he was not the type people would wish their own children to be friends with. No one who knew him has said anything of him that's outrageously dreadful but on the other hand no one has said anything complimentary, either, which in itself says much. I can't believe ALL were wrong in their assessments.
 

[Caroline]

The list is nothing to go by,as there must have been others who knew him enough to write an appraisal.
It's this " less than positive light " which is unfair,as unless you know someone personally,you can't judge them enough to have staked your life on the fact that " they could kill/murder ". 
I think Jeremy was rubbish with a rifle as it sounded as if he used one for amusement/target practice rather than shooting vermin,or HUMANS.       Where have I said he's guilty ?

I don't remember reading about a forensic scientist having been present at the scene.Who was it ?

Blimey,even the judge said it could have been either Jeremy or Sheila. He wasn't there,the same as nobody else was,except EP who for some unknown reason changed tack,and this has got to be the crux-----------not the silencer or anything else,but the reason for the change. It's that change that should have been investigated.

Jeremy wasn't convicted because people didn't like him, he was convicted because he killed his family and tried to push the blame onto his sister, by staging her suicide.

Jeremy has been described as a 'crack shot; with a rifle and no matter how much you try to rewrite the events, they are documented. However, even if he were a bad shot, he would be better that Sheila who had no knowledge of the rifle in question.

Cook (I'm sure you've heard of him?) was the scenes of crime officer in charge of collecting forensic evidence.

The Judge said it was either Jeremy or Sheila because of the phone call. If you believe that Nevill called Jeremy, then you have to believe that Sheila was responsible (Jeremy couldn't have been at WHF murdering the family if he was home taking a called from Nevill). However, if you don't believe that Nevill called, then the notion of the call is Jeremy's alibi. The phone call might have been his alibi, but it also put him in the frame.

[lookout]

Jeremy wasn't convicted because people didn't like him, he was convicted because he killed his family and tried to push the blame onto his sister, by staging her suicide.

Jeremy has been described as a 'crack shot; with a rifle and no matter how much you try to rewrite the events, they are documented. However, even if he were a bad shot, he would be better that Sheila who had no knowledge of the rifle in question.

Cook (I'm sure you've heard of him?) was the scenes of crime officer in charge of collecting forensic evidence.

The Judge said it was either Jeremy or Sheila because of the phone call. If you believe that Nevill called Jeremy, then you have to believe that Sheila was responsible (Jeremy couldn't have been at WHF murdering the family if he was home taking a called from Nevill). However, if you don't believe that Nevill called, then the notion of the call is Jeremy's alibi. The phone call might have been his alibi, but it also put him in the frame.

You can't " stage a suicide " with two shots for a start. Jeremy would have been well aware of that big mistake. IMO,one of those shots was delivered by another hand but the shot that killed her pretty well instantly,was self-administered.
I don't give a fig what's documented or what's been said by whom,I've got my own ideas and Jeremy isn't in the equation. It certainly wouldn't be the first time I've locked horns with a high-faluting member of the " know-it-all brigade ".

I'm talking about a team of forensic scientists,not Cook.  I have an acquaintance who works in forensic sciences and they work separately from the police,also,they are first on the scene kitted out in white from top to bottom to avoid contamination of any sort.

I don't see how a phone-call or not puts Jeremy in the frame. It depends on how you look at it. Either way,it shouldn't make a scrap of difference as to whether he's telling the truth or not.It's whatever you make of it.

[SaraT]

If someone is convicted of murder people always queue up to jump on the bandwagon and condemn. He may well have not been a very nice person at that time, who knows, but as you say it does not make him a murderer. I think the fact that he was nice looking, public school educated and led a priveleged life all probably did go against him, people have their prejudices. History is littered with people who are perceived as guilty because they don't act the way people think they should and this definitely does go against them. JB, Lindy Chamberlain, Amanda Knox, Joanne Lees, etc etc. JB was also 24 at the time of the murders and has been locked in at that age forevermore in people's eyes. Would you like to be judged for the rest of your life for the things you said and did up to that age? like I say, if someone is convicted of murder people are all too ready to say ooh I knew him and he was a right swine!!

[lookout]

That just about sums up peoples perceptions in general.

[susan]

That just about sums up peoples perceptions in general.

see Patti is on line

[Jane]

You can't " stage a suicide " with two shots for a start. Jeremy would have been well aware of that big mistake. IMO,one of those shots was delivered by another hand but the shot that killed her pretty well instantly,was self-administered.
I don't give a fig what's documented or what's been said by whom,I've got my own ideas and Jeremy isn't in the equation. It certainly wouldn't be the first time I've locked horns with a high-faluting member of the " know-it-all brigade ".

I'm talking about a team of forensic scientists,not Cook.  I have an acquaintance who works in forensic sciences and they work separately from the police,also,they are first on the scene kitted out in white from top to bottom to avoid contamination of any sort.

I don't see how a phone-call or not puts Jeremy in the frame. It depends on how you look at it. Either way,it shouldn't make a scrap of difference as to whether he's telling the truth or not.It's whatever you make of it.

Forensic scientists may well NOW be first on the scene covered from head to toe in white but I'd stake my life that such was NOT the case at WHF 30 years ago.

Re the phone call, if it didn't happen, and there's nothing which can say that either Jeremy OR the police received a call from Nevill, then we have  a laid back Jeremy diddling away time until he feels it's the right time to call them and calling Julie to say that all is well etc. IMO, what he used as an alibi, ie he couldn't have been at the farm murdering his family because he answered a call from his father, ergo, his father was alive at that time, if the call was concocted, bit him on the bum because it implicated him.

[lookout]

One thing Jeremy has never refused and that's any test which has been made available. Even if DNA had been available at the time,he'd have offered his services if it meant his freedom. How many would be willing to undergo any tests,etc ? Not a lot. They'd be too scared of being found out,not Jeremy !
Surely this has to stand for something. ? His fearlessness of all things truthful. Says a lot to me.

[Caroline]

You can't " stage a suicide " with two shots for a start. Jeremy would have been well aware of that big mistake. IMO,one of those shots was delivered by another hand but the shot that killed her pretty well instantly,was self-administered.
I don't give a fig what's documented or what's been said by whom,I've got my own ideas and Jeremy isn't in the equation. It certainly wouldn't be the first time I've locked horns with a high-faluting member of the " know-it-all brigade ".

I'm talking about a team of forensic scientists,not Cook.  I have an acquaintance who works in forensic sciences and they work separately from the police,also,they are first on the scene kitted out in white from top to bottom to avoid contamination of any sort.

I don't see how a phone-call or not puts Jeremy in the frame. It depends on how you look at it. Either way,it shouldn't make a scrap of difference as to whether he's telling the truth or not.It's whatever you make of it.

He had no choice BUT to stage a suicide, he couldn't exactly go back and unkill everyone.

You might have you own ideas, but if you document them here they are up for debate! If that 'little dig'  is referring to me, you're quite a 'know it all' yourself or try to be and as for locking horns, I don't have horns - if you do, that speaks volumes!!  .

A team of forensic scientists? This was 1985, the police did their own gathering and then sent of their evidence to an independent lab. They had their own scenes of crime officers. The role of SOCO later became a civilian role.

You don't see how the phone call puts Jeremy in the frame? I don't understand how you're not understanding. It's common sense Lookout. IF he was home at the time he received a call, then he couldn't be killing the family and Sheila MUST be guilty because Nevill mentioned that she had gone crazy and had the gun. If Nevill didn't call, then how did Jeremy know about the events at WHF - if he knew and there was no call, he HAS to be guilty. It doesn't depend how you look at it at all!! A call from Nevill = innocent, no call = guilty.

[susan]

If someone is convicted of murder people always queue up to jump on the bandwagon and condemn. He may well have not been a very nice person at that time, who knows, but as you say it does not make him a murderer. I think the fact that he was nice looking, public school educated and led a priveleged life all probably did go against him, people have their prejudices. History is littered with people who are perceived as guilty because they don't act the way people think they should and this definitely does go against them. JB, Lindy Chamberlain, Amanda Knox, Joanne Lees, etc etc. JB was also 24 at the time of the murders and has been locked in at that age forevermore in people's eyes. Would you like to be judged for the rest of your life for the things you said and did up to that age? like I say, if someone is convicted of murder people are all too ready to say ooh I knew him and he was a right swine!!

Hi Sara

I don't judge Jeremy for the way he acted or looked but the dreaded phone call puts him in the frame in my mind but I could be wrong that is for sure.  I must admit and hold my hands up I did judge Amanda Knox on the way she looked and behaved and I am still not convinced of her innocence.

[Caroline]

If someone is convicted of murder people always queue up to jump on the bandwagon and condemn. He may well have not been a very nice person at that time, who knows, but as you say it does not make him a murderer. I think the fact that he was nice looking, public school educated and led a priveleged life all probably did go against him, people have their prejudices. History is littered with people who are perceived as guilty because they don't act the way people think they should and this definitely does go against them. JB, Lindy Chamberlain, Amanda Knox, Joanne Lees, etc etc. JB was also 24 at the time of the murders and has been locked in at that age forevermore in people's eyes. Would you like to be judged for the rest of your life for the things you said and did up to that age? like I say, if someone is convicted of murder people are all too ready to say ooh I knew him and he was a right swine!!

If he wasn't nice looking, I doubt he would have as many supporters and if I had murdered someone I would expect to be judged for the rest of my life, wouldn't you?

[lookout]

see Patti is on line

Oh,is she ? I've been gassing with a neighbour. and getting the washing in.

[lookout]

If he wasn't nice looking, I doubt he would have as many supporters and if I had murdered someone I would expect to be judged for the rest of my life, wouldn't you?

There again,I never judge a book by its cover.It could have been the Hunchback for all I care.If he'd been dealt a bum steer by the justice system,I'd still have supported him. No matter who.