The Myths of Circumstantial Evidence

[Jan]

I think Lookout is clear she means forensic evidence connected with the crime - not with him being at the house.

Circumstantial evidence relies on all of those contributing being 100% honest . Otherwise it is not relevant.

[Caroline]

Convicted on what ? What did EP find to convict him ? It's DNA which should have been present if Jeremy had had anything to do with it.
There'd have been sweat for starters with the Aga burning,plus it was a warm night to,plus he'd have been hurtling around,nervously sweating.

I knew you would say that, his DNA was ALL OVER that house!

[Caroline]

I think Lookout is clear she means forensic evidence connected with the crime - not with him being at the house.

Circumstantial evidence relies on all of those contributing being 100% honest . Otherwise it is not relevant.

Everyone lied except Jeremy? Just like with the photographs. The court and COA's since all thought it was relevant.

[Steve_uk]

I do find Judge Judy annoying,especially when she tells people to shut up and belittles them in front of everyone. It's a good job she has a couple of heavies in the courtroom to stop the audience from attacking her. I was surprised that in law forensic evidence is regarded as circumstantial,but in this case there was very little forensic evidence due to the Police's errors.

[Caroline]

I do find Judge Judy annoying,especially when she tells people to shut up and belittles them in front of everyone. It's a good job she has a couple of heavies in the courtroom to stop the audience from attacking her. I was surprised that in law forensic evidence is regarded as circumstantial,but in this case there was very little forensic evidence due to the Police's errors.

Life mirrors art eh Steve? 

Was it really down to police errors or the fact that it was 'staged' as a murder suicide?

[lookout]

I knew you would say that, his DNA was ALL OVER that house!

It could well have been on the night attires which the deceased wore,particularly Neville's jacket.

[lookout]

I do find Judge Judy annoying,especially when she tells people to shut up and belittles them in front of everyone. It's a good job she has a couple of heavies in the courtroom to stop the audience from attacking her. I was surprised that in law forensic evidence is regarded as circumstantial,but in this case there was very little forensic evidence due to the Police's errors.

That's Caroline's whole idea--------to belittle. I tend to feel sorry for people like that.What a sad way to gain attention.

[Steve_uk]

Life mirrors art eh Steve? 

Was it really down to police errors or the fact that it was 'staged' as a murder suicide?

What was the whole scenario from the kitchen scene at the White House on the Tuesday evening to the bike ride back through fields and the incident itself? It can only come from Jeremy and I just want to know..

[Jan]

Everyone lied except Jeremy? Just like with the photographs. The court and COA's since all thought it was relevant.

Why do you keep generalising and jumping to conclusions. Did I say everyone lied? No I did not.

You believe the moderator was not used - so you must believe some are telling lies. If it was planted that means the family and EP must have known. That rules out a few witnesses for a start.

Or have you changed your mind about that?

do you now also believe everything JM said in court? Although of course we must remember she covered herself by saying that he never admitted doing it ( oh except on the night she "knew" he had).

[Caroline]

Why do you keep generalising and jumping to conclusions. Did I say everyone lied? No I did not.

You believe the moderator was not used - so you must believe some are telling lies. If it was planted that means the family and EP must have known. That rules out a few witnesses for a start.

Or have you changed your mind about that?

do you now also believe everything JM said in court? Although of course we must remember she covered herself by saying that he never admitted doing it ( oh except on the night she "knew" he had).

(And people tell me to 'calm down')

No, still don't believe the moderator was used - so no, I haven't changed my mind about that.

I don't believe everything that JM said, but enough of it.

I think it's naive to think people don't lie in court or that police don't help the evidence along. This case isn't unique or Jeremy any less guilty.

[Steve_uk]

From Jeremy's point of view either he knows he's guilty but thought he got away with it being confident enough to return to the scene of the crime by climbing through a window(or purposefully contaminating any forensic evidence depending on your point of view) or he's completely innocent and went through the trial in this mindset,yet has not fallen to pieces in the aftermath whilst keeping his true emotion concealed to every correspondent..

[Jan]

Ok some Facts - and you don't have to go into any assumptions about why.

They never found JB footprints in any blood
They never found any forensic evidence of his exit from the house
There was never any clothes /gloves found hidden or burnt
No one saw him go to WHF or leave the house and arrive back home
They never found any fibre from the gloves he was supposed to have been wearing
They never found any physical evidence of a fight on him ( or Sheila  for that matter)
They never found ay blood or evidence of him disposing of evidence in his house ( where the police were the next day)
No one saw him disposing of any evidence ( despite the family watching him like a hawk)
There was no evidence on the bike or his car or the wetsuit
No evidence not even one tiny bit was found on any clothes or shoes of blood from any of the victims.

So therefore you think he would have been one of the most meticulous and clever murderers - but no he then apparently told his girlfriend who he was about to break up with.

And don't bore me with the old story he had a month to dispose of everything - unless he was psychic and knew the police were like the keystone cops he did not have a month - it is one of the most stupid arguments I have heard on here . Plus according to some he was too busy galavanting around to have time to be scrubbing the bike with bleach

[scipio_usmc]

I think Lookout is clear she means forensic evidence connected with the crime - not with him being at the house.

Circumstantial evidence relies on all of those contributing being 100% honest . Otherwise it is not relevant.

The forensic evidence proves that Sheila didn't kill herself or hurt anyone else. If she actually had beaten Nevill and shot the others there would have been forensic evidence to establish it.  The forensic evidence proves she was shot while seated propped against something for a period of time long enough for the blood to travel down her shoulder and side of her breast before being moved flat and the blood then running down the side of her neck to the floor and pooling there.  The Bible was then placed in such pool of blood that formed after she was moved and the moderator was removed and put away before the gun was placed across her body.

In the meantime Jeremy is the only one with a motive to kill them and frame it on Sheila.  Furthermore, Julie insists he was planning to kill them and frame Sheila and he told her he had a hitman do it. Even if you ignore these things Jeremy himself called police claiming he received a call for Nevill.  Jeremy admits he made such call there is no colorable claim it didn't happen.  The only way he could known something happened is if he were responsible.  There is not other way for him to know something had happened.

Proving that Sheila didn't do anything and was framed automatically implicates Jeremy because it rules out Nevill phoning him and implicating Sheila as he claims occurred.

The forensic evidence also rules out such a call.  The forensic evidence shows the killer started in the master bedroom where no phone was present shooting June 6 times and Nevill 4 times and after this Nevill could not speak. June was shot in bed but Nevill was either sitting or in the process of rising.   

Even Jeremy's own actions demonstrate no call happened. Someone receiving such a call would rush over or call 999. After allegedly receiving the call he did neither- he called Julie then claims to have wasted a great deal time looking up police station numbers. After no answer at the first station he called because it was unmanned did he decide to call 999?  No he decided to look up more station numbers hoping to eventually find one that was manned.  His lack of any sense of urgency betrays his claim of receiving the call.  When you combine the evidence that shows Nevill would have zero reason to call and had no ability into the mix Jeremy is sunk.

Jeremy supporters choose to ignore this and simply pretend the evidence was weak but refusing to face reality and thus face how strong the case was accomplishes nothing.  It is rather like 9/11 conspiracy theorists insisting that the evidence proves the US government rigged the buildings to explode because planes could not truly bring them down though the reality is that planes can bring buildings down in the manner the planes did and there is zero evidence of any explosives bringing down the buildings.

Refusing to face reality doesn't make it go away.

Refusing to believe something proven by evidence amounts to living in denial, it doesn't refute the evidence or make it go away.

 

[lookout]

I'm still waiting for that long list of evidence that EP supposedly brought against him to secure a conviction.

[Jan]

(And people tell me to 'calm down')

No, still don't believe the moderator was used - so no, I haven't changed my mind about that.

I don't believe everything that JM said, but enough of it.

I think it's naive to think people don't lie in court or that police don't help the evidence along. This case isn't unique or Jeremy any less guilty.

So therefore a lot of the circumstantial evidence in this case could be based on lies - so in my eyes that places doubt on the conviction. If they had to resort to lies then you have to ask yourself why the evidence was not there?