outlandish Theory's

[Caroline]

Pure speculation. Please post the source where it is said that Jeremy had never left the rifle out before. Or that Sheila hadn't had a psychotic episode on one of those occasions.

Please post one where he had? IF he had, he's hav used it to explain how it could have happened again - in the lack of such testimony or evidence, it is safe to say it didn't happen.

[Caroline]

A catatonic phase is a prelude to the manic phase of a psychotic episode. CC, PB, Jeremy all described Sheila as withdrawn.

It seems to me that you are describing Bipolar disorder not schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is controlled quite successfully by medication - which Sheila had in her system. There is also a MASSIVE difference between 'withdrawn' and 'catatonic'!!

[Jane]

Pure speculation. Please post the source where it is said that Jeremy had never left the rifle out before. Or that Sheila hadn't had a psychotic episode on one of those occasions.

Asking for proof that Sheila hadn't previously had psychotic episode whilst with her parents -given that all are now dead- is asking for proof of a negative.

[Jane]

A catatonic phase is a prelude to the manic phase of a psychotic episode. CC, PB, Jeremy all described Sheila as withdrawn.

There's a vast space on the spectrum between lethargy and catatonia.

[maggie]

A catatonic phase is a prelude to the manic phase of a psychotic episode. CC, PB, Jeremy all described Sheila as withdrawn.

That is true and we know as fact that June was very concerned about Sheila. It is one of the few facts we have in this case because Pamela Boutflour spoke to June and told her about her concerns for Sheila hours before they all died.
A catatonic state is often a warning of a full blown episode and cannot be dismissed, however although we are told by Jeremy that Sheila was withdrawn and detached and we know June told Pamela something similar we have no proof that Sheila was in such a state....... was Sheila catatonic or 'depressed', did Jeremy exaggerate Sheila's state to reinforce her guilt, did he know far more about P.S. than he admitted?
JM claimed he spent about a year planning the murders (badly) did JB quietly read up about P.S. but pretend he didn't know anything about the illness?
Round and round we go, no wonder this case is confusing and the basis of it all has to be the question is JB capable of carrying out such an act in cold blood? 

[mike tesko]

I have loved reading all the interesting theory's in this forum most are well thought out and some even plausible. The problem is there is no evidence to back any of them up.

this case as I've said before should be overturned not because of theory's but because there is no evidence that would show that without any doubt JB is guilty.

Case rests on 3 things as per trial and summing up of the Judge.

1. Do we believe Julie Mongford

2. The silencer being found and red paint and blood found

3. Did JB get a call from his father

(1) - Mugfords evidence is too scatty, and unreliable. She was a woman scorned, hell bent on causing Jeremy as much trouble as possible. The 31+ interviews she had with the police were clearly sessions during which DS Jones, and DC Barlow, schooled her on how to present her evidence. She was also motivated by cash incentives should Jeremy be convicted. She was treated like a VIP, put up in a hotel, all expenses paid for. If any of her evidence was true, she should have been prosecuted in the same way Myra Hindley, Rose West and Maxine Carr, were implicated, charged and convicted. Her account cannot be factually true, otherwise she would have been in the dock with Jeremy...

(2) - Silencer belonging to anshuzt rifle was not used in shooting of Sheila Caffell, if it had been used police would have known about it, before the relatives did...

(3) - Jeremy did receive a call from his father, there is evidence regarding this in his witness statements, and trial testimony. No evidence exists or was relied upon to contradict this fact (unless you accept Jeremy shot Sheila, and set the scene by him placing the anshuzt rifle on her body to create the impression that she had shot herself - in which case, how could the same rifle be photographed resting against the bedroom window (photo' 23) prior to 'it' being then photographed upon her body, as per crime scene photographs, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32, etc)...

Julie Mugfords testimony was tainted, the Bamber owned Silencer was not used in Sheila' shooting, and Ralph Bamber did make a call to Jeremy...

[notsure]

Hi mike, jm wasnt the only one making money out of jbs conviction.

i just listenec to the video of the money trail on th cteams website. Makes interesting listening.

there is no doubt in my mind at all that the family were aware that they had everything to lose if jb was not convicted.

The question i have to yet answer is, would they set him up for the money?

[Jane]

Hi mike, jm wasnt the only one making money out of jbs conviction.

i just listenec to the video of the money trail on th cteams website. Makes interesting listening.

there is no doubt in my mind at all that the family were aware that they had everything to lose if jb was not convicted.

The question i have to yet answer is, would they set him up for the money?

I can say, from experience, that in some families where there is property, money, land and business interests, despite the law saying otherwise, adopted people aren't always regarded as "family" and MAY have to work extra hard to prove themselves. I don't believe that Jeremy did that. I don't believe he was cut out to be a farmer. I don't believe he had any love of farming because it wasn't in his blood. His only interest seemed to be in raising as much money for it, as he could, as quickly as possible. This could have left those for whom the family business had been their life's work in an invidious position. In answer to you question, I'd feel more inclined to say that if they believed he was guilty, they'd have been likely to have tried to prevent the money from falling into HIS hands as opposed to getting it into theirs. I think their first concern MAY have been about protecting their own livelihoods.

[notsure]

Well tough s...... on them. He was june and nevilles son and they left  thier money to him and shiela and quite rightly so in my opinion.

it is very obvious if you look at it from the money angle that they had as much motive as jb

[Jane]

Well tough s...... on them. He was june and nevilles son and they left  thier money to him and shiela and quite rightly so in my opinion.

it is very obvious if you look at it from the money angle that they had as much motive as jb

The saying goes, that before we judge another person we should walk a mile in their shoes. I'm not saying it was right but I AM saying I can understand where they were coming from.

Re Jeremy, in order to inherit in the natural way he'd have been required to remain farming, something I'm convinced he wanted to get away from, which I guess put him between a rock and a hard place.

[notsure]

I get where they were coming from too jane. It must have been hard knowing that june and nevills son was going to own half of thier farms etc.anne eaton and the boutflours knew exactly what the stakes were.

would they have framed him for the money..... well as i said they had the same motive as jb and its a fact they weren't completely honest to the jury about benefiting were they.

[Jane]

I get where they were coming from too jane. It must have been hard knowing that june and nevills son was going to own half of thier farms etc.anne eaton and the boutflours knew exactly what the stakes were.

would they have framed him for the money..... well as i said they had the same motive as jb and its a fact they weren't completely honest to the jury about benefiting were they.

Notsure, you won't like the answer I'm about to give but it's the only one possible.

We've all watched courtroom scenes in which a question is asked and answered with a BUT which is quickly cut off with "No more questions." In a courtroom setting oner ONLY answers questions one is asked. One doesn't volunteer information. RWB was asked if he would benefit from Jeremy's conviction. He said he wouldn't. I agree it was ambiguous but it was the truth. The question was deliberately put that way, because had they asked would his family benefit from Jeremy's conviction, the answer would have been different.

[notsure]

No it wasnt the truth, his wife was going to inherit and as her husband would have jointly owned that inyeritance.

it wasnt just that though was it. The truth is they had as much motive as jb but the question is would they have set him up so they didnt lose what they had and werent beholden  to him

[Jane]

No it wasnt the truth, his wife was going to inherit and as her husband would have jointly owned that inyeritance.

it wasnt just that though was it. The truth is they had as much motive as jb but the question is would they have set him up so they didnt lose what they had and werent beholden  to him

Unless the inheritance was to have been in joint names -and I can see no valid reason for it- it would have belonged solely to Pam. How she chose to distribute it would have been up to her. However ambiguous his reply, it was truthful.

[notsure]

Yes it is ambigious and likely it would have been put within there other joint assetts.

Had it been revealed in court the jury would have completely understood that they were going to benefit which was the point of asking.

they should havd known