The Myths of Circumstantial Evidence

[Caroline]

How do you know Sheilas day clothes had no blood on them? There is no evidence they were tested - in fact Anne Eaton says she still had the dress Sheila was wearing during the day in her laundry basket years afterwards so the police never took it away to be tested.

So they obviously didn't think it was important.

[Caroline]

or to quote Adams favourite phrase there was a ring of truth. Nothing has to be so black and white . Embelishment of words can be very dangerous in a situation like this.

If Jeremy said yes his sister was familiar with guns from the farm but had not used them on a regular basis - then when the police realised they had made a mistake they had to cover their actions by making out she had used them all - it was their word against his .

so not black and white out and out lies - twisting his words for the "noble cause" - but if that was the case it puts a completely different spin on the situation on the night.

And the family told the police within hours nearly that Sheila could not have used the gun - then why did they not pick up on his blatant lies then?

Twisting words - isn't that what you're doing? There is nothing to suggest Jeremy said Sheila didn't use guns on a regular basis - if he were being honest, he would surly just have said she didn't have much experience? The police would have written up their note books at a later stage anyway and when they thought the case was a murder/suicide, may not have included specific details of what Jeremy said.

Some of the police were suspicious of Jeremy, others obviously thought the family were interfering.

[lookout]

 I'm sorry,but behaviour alone shouldn't give rise to suspicion,which is what SJ based his own suspicions on.

[Jane]

I'm sorry,but behaviour alone shouldn't give rise to suspicion,which is what SJ based his own suspicions on.

Well you say gut instinct tells you that Jeremy is innocent. There were seasoned police there who'd probably climbed through the ranks and maybe Jeremy's behaviour -which they witnessed- after having witnessed similar behaviour from others who were guilty, triggered their own gut reaction to kick in. Behaviour is often the first thing to alert us that something isn't right.

[Caroline]

I'm sorry,but behaviour alone shouldn't give rise to suspicion,which is what SJ based his own suspicions on.

Of course it should! Several people have become suspects because of their behaviour!! Ian Huntley, Tracey Andrews, Stuart Hazell ...... the list is endless! It's one of the things police look for but it wasn't behaviour alone that convicted him but it did give rise to suspicion.

[lookout]

Well you say gut instinct tells you that Jeremy is innocent. There were seasoned police there who'd probably climbed through the ranks and maybe Jeremy's behaviour -which they witnessed- after having witnessed similar behaviour from others who were guilty, triggered their own gut reaction to kick in. Behaviour is often the first thing to alert us that something isn't right.

Yes,I still maintain that my own gut instinct tells me that Jeremy is indeed innocent----------besides other things of course,as instinct alone isn't enough.
I don't care how " seasoned " the police were,they still didn't use common sense here,and to RELY fully on gut instinct with no evidence whatsoever,is a bummer.
Behaviour such as what ? Offering a huge " slap-up " breakfast such as SJ had suggested ? When there were all of two pieces, of probably curled up bacon, in the fridge ? That was a lie for a start on SJ's behalf. SJ very likely thought that a " rich boy " would have had a fridge full to the gunnels. What SJ didn't think out was the fact that because Jeremy spent most of his time at the farm,that he'd eat there, so therefore without the need to fill up his own fridge.
The police went into this case,blinkered,and carried on in the same way.

[lookout]

Of course it should! Several people have become suspects because of their behaviour!! Ian Huntley, Tracey Andrews, Stuart Hazell ...... the list is endless! It's one of the things police look for but it wasn't behaviour alone that convicted him but it did give rise to suspicion.

What suspicious behaviour did Jeremy display against the obvious ones who you've named ?

[Jane]

Yes,I still maintain that my own gut instinct tells me that Jeremy is indeed innocent----------besides other things of course,as instinct alone isn't enough.
I don't care how " seasoned " the police were,they still didn't use common sense here,and to RELY fully on gut instinct with no evidence whatsoever,is a bummer.
Behaviour such as what ? Offering a huge " slap-up " breakfast such as SJ had suggested ? When there were all of two pieces, of probably curled up bacon, in the fridge ? That was a lie for a start on SJ's behalf. SJ very likely thought that a " rich boy " would have had a fridge full to the gunnels. What SJ didn't think out was the fact that because Jeremy spent most of his time at the farm,that he'd eat there, so therefore without the need to fill up his own fridge.
The police went into this case,blinkered,and carried on in the same way.

But Lookout, you have done EXACTLY what you've just accused them of doing -from the off, you have relied ENTIRELY on gut instinct with no evidence to back it up- and without the benefit of their experience you hold yourself up as knowing more than them.

A "slap up" breakfast is relative, He MAY have been a cup of te and a cigarette type. As for the police being blinkered, we all have our own prejudices whether we admit to them or not.

[Caroline]

What suspicious behaviour did Jeremy display against the obvious ones who you've named ?

Something about the way he acted set off alarm bells in SJ. I don't hold with the 'hearty breakfast' BS but there are things that would have made me wonder - especially after being told that ALL the family were dead - he kept asking "Why can't I speak to me dad?" - PLEASE!! 

[lookout]

But Lookout, you have done EXACTLY what you've just accused them of doing -from the off, you have relied ENTIRELY on gut instinct with no evidence to back it up- and without the benefit of their experience you hold yourself up as knowing more than them.

A "slap up" breakfast is relative, He MAY have been a cup of te and a cigarette type. As for the police being blinkered, we all have our own prejudices whether we admit to them or not.

Yes,I've used gut instinct,but I've also studied the likes of JM and the relatives and their part in all this,who were ALL so easily led by EP and when they all began to add their sixpenn'orth with impunity.
When was it that SJ had this gut-feeling ? Was it before,or after he'd met JM and the relatives ?

I have my own in-built evidence.It's called common sense. I don't need anyone to tell me who did it or who didn't. EP relied on the relatives for their input towards convicting Jeremy. Would they have come to the same conclusion without background interference ?  Why were they so eager ?

[Jane]

Yes,I've used gut instinct,but I've also studied the likes of JM and the relatives and their part in all this,who were ALL so easily led by EP and when they all began to add their sixpenn'orth with impunity.
When was it that SJ had this gut-feeling ? Was it before,or after he'd met JM and the relatives ?

I have my own in-built evidence.It's called common sense. I don't need anyone to tell me who did it or who didn't. EP relied on the relatives for their input towards convicting Jeremy. Would they have come to the same conclusion without background interference ?  Why were they so eager ?

I would have said that they used their own common sense. They can't have been unaware that the rellies didn't like Jeremy. ANYONE would have reasoned -some sooner than others- that there MIGHT be something in it other than jealousy. It's very likely that they used that dislike to their advantage.

 NO one can say that Jeremy's actions, post massacre, were beyond reproach and above suspicion. He appeared to revel in the fact that he was being watched and commented on and he did that all by himself. The police didn't need the comments of the rellies to see exactly what he was doing and none of it fitted with a son feeling grief.

[Jan]

Twisting words - isn't that what you're doing? There is nothing to suggest Jeremy said Sheila didn't use guns on a regular basis - if he were being honest, he would surly just have said she didn't have much experience? The police would have written up their note books at a later stage anyway and when they thought the case was a murder/suicide, may not have included specific details of what Jeremy said.

Some of the police were suspicious of Jeremy, others obviously thought the family were interfering.

In his statement in Sept he denied he used the phrases the police were accusing him of. So his word against thier. I was just suggesting they could have embellished what he said to cover up why they did not go in straight away. Or as you said they may have forgotten as it was a month later. But it does mean if that was true he did not set the situation to stop them going in . In fact he begged them to go in and never indicated that any shots had been fired and perhaps did not say she had fired every weapon in the house - which is what I was getting at.

[Adam]

There was certainly a 'mountain' of circumstantial evidence in this case. Together with a motive, opportunity and no alibi. There was also a lot of forensic evidence.

But as the 'New video' said, despite all the evidence Jeremy continued to say he was innocent. The attractive psychiatrist and Fielding saying Jeremy will never admit his guilt.

[lookout]

Name the forensic evidence.

[Adam]

Name the forensic evidence.

No you do it.

I suggest you start reading. There is a lot.