outlandish Theory's

[Caroline]

The angle of the first shot is 45 degree's and impossible to achieve and land in the position that Sheila was found in with the gun laying neatly across her chest.

There again does not prove JB shot her and as you can see from the evidence photos there are photos of the body and the gun in more than one position. There is no doubt the crime scene was contaminated so the photos cannot be taken as evidence as we have no idea when the scene was staged but due to actual facts ie the photos the body was definitely moved.

Sheila had never used that weapon before so why would she choose it to shoot the family?

there is again no evidence to say she never used that weapon before its unlikely that she did but no evidence and if it was sheila and im not saying it was it may have been the most handy weapon.

The jury didn't believe he received a call - they have the right to evaluate his story on the evidence provided. They decided it was BS.

The Jury gave a verdict of guilty they did not express any views as to what they believed or didn't believe on individual testimony. And if the prosecution cannot prove without reasonable doubt that JB did not have a call this should have been reiterated by the judges summing up not that the phone call was mysterious . Giving an impression to the jury.

Who else shot her?

[wiggy]

you again miss the point its not about who shot her its about does the evidence prove that JB did

[Caroline]

you again miss the point its not about who shot her its about does the evidence prove that JB did

No, I'm not missing any point, Jeremy called the police and told them he received a call from his father stating that Sheila had gone crazy, she had the gun. If there was a call, Sheila killed herself, if there wasn't - Jeremy HAD to be the killer. Now, if you're now admitting that a 45 degree shot is pretty much impossible - Neville is dead downstairs, June and the twins are also dead (the twins never having moved) and Sheila has the gun placed on her body after one impossible shot and another immediately fatal wound! Who shot Sheila?

I think Jeremy's story about a phone call pretty much proves he is guilty.

[wiggy]

im not admitting a 45 degree shot is impossible as i don't know if it is no one does but its not enough to prove JB done it.

you seem to have made your mind up based on your opinion not on facts

i have not stated anything that is not a fact.

but you want to take great leeps of supposition. I dont get how you can be so sure and have no doubt whatsoever.

even with the facts i have pointed out

Flawed forensic , flawed testimony ect

[Caroline]

im not admitting a 45 degree shot is impossible as i don't know if it is no one does but its not enough to prove JB done it.

you seem to have made your mind up based on your opinion not on facts

i have not stated anything that is not a fact.

but you want to take great leeps of supposition. I dont get how you can be so sure and have no doubt whatsoever.

even with the facts i have pointed out

Flawed forensic , flawed testimony ect

You haven't really stated anything at all - just made claims that there was no evidence which is wrong. Circumstantial evidence is used every day to convict and there was an abundance. However, specifically, which testimony was flawed and what proof do you have that it was flawed?

I have no doubt whatsoever that he is guilty - none!

[wiggy]

there is plenty of circumstancial evidence yes but no factual evidence to back this up.

it is universally agreed he was convicted mainly on three main points

1. The silencer

2. The phone call

3. JMs testimony

1. the silencer evidence is flawed as was found by the very people that had the most to gain by JB being convicted.  It was taken from the scene and not pointed out to the police for them to take it. Which would be argued is inadmissible . There is no definite identification that Sheilas blood was on the silencer.

2. The fact JB received a call from his father cannot be disputed as there is no way to disprove it without there being some doubt.

3. JM testimony must be taken with a pinch of salt as there is no way to verify most of what she says plus she was given immunity from prosecution for her testimony and from september 85 was in conversation through a solicitor of Ellison & Company to negotiate the rights to her story on a guilty verdict.

There was other flawed testimony especially David Boutflour who was (and not desclosed at the trial) was to directly gain from JB being convicted.  He seemed very unclear on any answers that may have helped JB but more confident with his memory when it did not help him. The whole farce of whether he remembered a shooting outing to scotland. Either say he remembered or he didnt he kept changing what he remembered. Very suspicious.

there was other circumstantial evidence but without the three above the jury would i think have ruled  differently.

Plus the police investigation was a nightmare. they definitely re staged the crime scene as you can see by the photos of sheila in two positions. There are also statements to say that   they were the ones that did most of the disturbance in the kitchen knocking over chairs and knocking over the sugar bowl. Also although i dont want to speculate but there is suppose to be a recording of the police radios recording open conversations as they entered the farm house but this has never been released. Why.

The sloppy way the calls to the police were logged which causes confusion as to whether the father called the police or if two separate logs were the same log. The police ran this whole operation very badly. I wonder how many officers were disciplined internally.

It is arrogant of anyone with the evidence presented that you can say JB did it.

As i said i think he might have but not on this evidence.

I also think there should be a law passed that no witness in a trial should be able to profit by selling there story on a guilty verdict.

Once a trial is over the witness should not be allowed to gain for the contents of there testimony.

Plus JM should have been charged with conspiracy is JB had in fact told her a number of times his plan and on the day told her tonights the night and she done nothing to alert the police this can be construed as conspiracy as she said nothing the next day. In fact she went and identified the bodies.

If he also told her at the farmhouse as she claims the day after that the hit man did it then the fact she did not go forward on that day that at minimum withholding evidence.



 

 

[Caroline]

there is plenty of circumstancial evidence yes but no factual evidence to back this up.

it is universally agreed he was convicted mainly on three main points

1. The silencer

2. The phone call

3. JMs testimony

1. the silencer evidence is flawed as was found by the very people that had the most to gain by JB being convicted.  It was taken from the scene and not pointed out to the police for them to take it. Which would be argued is inadmissible . There is no definite identification that Sheilas blood was on the silencer.

2. The fact JB received a call from his father cannot be disputed as there is no way to disprove it without there being some doubt.

3. JM testimony must be taken with a pinch of salt as there is no way to verify most of what she says plus she was given immunity from prosecution for her testimony and from september 85 was in conversation through a solicitor of Ellison & Company to negotiate the rights to her story on a guilty verdict.

There was other flawed testimony especially David Boutflour who was (and not desclosed at the trial) was to directly gain from JB being convicted.  He seemed very unclear on any answers that may have helped JB but more confident with his memory when it did not help him. The whole farce of whether he remembered a shooting outing to scotland. Either say he remembered or he didnt he kept changing what he remembered. Very suspicious.

there was other circumstantial evidence but without the three above the jury would i think have ruled  differently.

Plus the police investigation was a nightmare. they definitely re staged the crime scene as you can see by the photos of sheila in two positions. There are also statements to say that   they were the ones that did most of the disturbance in the kitchen knocking over chairs and knocking over the sugar bowl. Also although i dont want to speculate but there is suppose to be a recording of the police radios recording open conversations as they entered the farm house but this has never been released. Why.

The sloppy way the calls to the police were logged which causes confusion as to whether the father called the police or if two separate logs were the same log. The police ran this whole operation very badly. I wonder how many officers were disciplined internally.

It is arrogant of anyone with the evidence presented that you can say JB did it.

As i said i think he might have but not on this evidence.

I also think there should be a law passed that no witness in a trial should be able to profit by selling there story on a guilty verdict.

Once a trial is over the witness should not be allowed to gain for the contents of there testimony.

Plus JM should have been charged with conspiracy is JB had in fact told her a number of times his plan and on the day told her tonights the night and she done nothing to alert the police this can be construed as conspiracy as she said nothing the next day. In fact she went and identified the bodies.

If he also told her at the farmhouse as she claims the day after that the hit man did it then the fact she did not go forward on that day that at minimum withholding evidence.

I don't care if you think I'm arrogant or not - it's clear from your posts that you don't know much about the case anyway! When you have sorted you fact from myth, then I might consider your opinion. Right now, you seem to be a newby with a chip or an agenda! 

[wiggy]

ive no chip on my shoulder and i think you may have taken my comments of our arrogance in the wrong way.

I will again say i have no idea whether he is innocent or guilty i probably think on the basis of probability he may have done it.

Again i think though it is arrogant to presume that what JM states is true that the crime scene wasn't compromised and that the silencer evidence is inadmissible due to no definate identification of blood, and of how it was found.

Yes JB had a motive but then every son of a wealthy family would have a motive. Did he have opportunity to commit the crime , yes he did did he have the means to carry it out , yes he did but again this alone can not convict. I cant understand why anyone can not see that there is doubt however small that doubt is then he must not be convicted.

Again i dont mean this in a rude way or a chip on my shoulder way i just dont understand the arrogance of there being no doubt whatsoever even though there was so much as above that was tainted.

im sorry if i offend anyone who can see no doubt in his conviction.

[guest154]

Again i think though it is arrogant to presume that what JM states is true that the crime scene wasn't compromised and that the silencer evidence is inadmissible due to no definate identification of blood, and of how it was found.

How's it arrogant to agree with the outcome of the investigation, when it can be backed up with reports?

Yes JB had a motive but then every son of a wealthy family would have a motive.

But not everyone son of a wealthy family talks about ways in which to kill his family, who then suddenly turn up dead.

Again i dont mean this in a rude way or a chip on my shoulder way i just dont understand the arrogance of there being no doubt whatsoever even though there was so much as above that was tainted.

I think you need to learn the difference between fact and opinion. You think there is doubt, and that it  is arrogance anyone dares disagree with you, well that is just your opinion. Those in a legal sense that have looked at the case have rejected the appeals and been found just in doing so  - are they arrogant too for not agreeing with you?

I think alot of the people believe there is no doubt, because they know the case well enough to have a strong opinion on it.

[Adam]

there is plenty of circumstancial evidence yes but no factual evidence to back this up.

it is universally agreed he was convicted mainly on three main points

1. The silencer

2. The phone call

3. JMs testimony

1. the silencer evidence is flawed as was found by the very people that had the most to gain by JB being convicted.  It was taken from the scene and not pointed out to the police for them to take it. Which would be argued is inadmissible . There is no definite identification that Sheilas blood was on the silencer.

2. The fact JB received a call from his father cannot be disputed as there is no way to disprove it without there being some doubt.

3. JM testimony must be taken with a pinch of salt as there is no way to verify most of what she says plus she was given immunity from prosecution for her testimony and from september 85 was in conversation through a solicitor of Ellison & Company to negotiate the rights to her story on a guilty verdict.

There was other flawed testimony especially David Boutflour who was (and not desclosed at the trial) was to directly gain from JB being convicted.  He seemed very unclear on any answers that may have helped JB but more confident with his memory when it did not help him. The whole farce of whether he remembered a shooting outing to scotland. Either say he remembered or he didnt he kept changing what he remembered. Very suspicious.

there was other circumstantial evidence but without the three above the jury would i think have ruled  differently.

Plus the police investigation was a nightmare. they definitely re staged the crime scene as you can see by the photos of sheila in two positions. There are also statements to say that   they were the ones that did most of the disturbance in the kitchen knocking over chairs and knocking over the sugar bowl. Also although i dont want to speculate but there is suppose to be a recording of the police radios recording open conversations as they entered the farm house but this has never been released. Why.

The sloppy way the calls to the police were logged which causes confusion as to whether the father called the police or if two separate logs were the same log. The police ran this whole operation very badly. I wonder how many officers were disciplined internally.

It is arrogant of anyone with the evidence presented that you can say JB did it.

As i said i think he might have but not on this evidence.

I also think there should be a law passed that no witness in a trial should be able to profit by selling there story on a guilty verdict.

Once a trial is over the witness should not be allowed to gain for the contents of there testimony.

Plus JM should have been charged with conspiracy is JB had in fact told her a number of times his plan and on the day told her tonights the night and she done nothing to alert the police this can be construed as conspiracy as she said nothing the next day. In fact she went and identified the bodies.

If he also told her at the farmhouse as she claims the day after that the hit man did it then the fact she did not go forward on that day that at minimum withholding evidence.

There are over 30 pieces of incriminating forensic evidence. Which I have posted several times.

[Adam]

thanks for that adam that has rely cleared it up.

The evidence is overwhelming.

there definitively was no call as the evidence shows(oh wait there is no evidence to show if there was or wasn't a call) However in his summing up he gave an opinion that it was mysterious there is grounds for a mistrial just on that point )

The blood almost certainly being sheilas means it definitely was sheilas (is almost certainly and definitely the same word)

The police were not looking for any incriminating evidence ah well that explains it( the police would still need to document the crime scene and look for clues even i it was suicide by shelia it was still  a murder
plus as i said there is documented evidence that the cupboard was seached and nothing found,

plus if the relatives found the silencer it would be more convincing would it not to have alerted the police to it rather than take it back to the other house. Dosent that raise any doubts at all.

im glad to see that you are however very open minded in you assessment of the facts.

As i have stated i have no idea whether he is guilty or not but where are the facts.

Also as far as JM statement is concerned she has shown to have lied as her first statement contradicts her statements after and only after she finds out she is being cheated on.

I hae no idea why she went to the police to tell them that JB told her he done it but isnt there any doubt in your mind that it happened after she found out he had been cheating on her and not before.

its all about reasonable doubt and in this case there is a lot of reasonable doubt.  No concrete evidence and the term almost certainly is not enough.

Do you believe Julie went to the police because she was jilted ?

She was then one warped, savage, confident, brave, and vindictive 21 year old woman. And her outright lies were amazingly believed.

It is inconclusive whether she was jilted. And even more inconclusive that she was bothered. Anyway jilted women are just as likely to tell the truth.

Several threads on this.

[Jane]

thank you jane im glad you agree that the telephone call can not be proved or unproved which is why we have the presumption of innocence.

im glad you now understand this

And i totally get that JM would never do a lie dectector and she was not on trial thats right all her charges were dropped. The point being if the jury knew she had immunity when she testified it would change there perception of her testimony which has never been collaborated by any evidence . Also do you really think she had no conversation prior to the trial re selling her story on a guilty verdict.

Her testimony whether it was true or not is tainted.  It was also inaccurate or have they now arrested the hitman that she claims shot the family.

Tell me jane on what piece of actual evidence would you convict JB on.

The blood evidence is not definite the family moved the evidence rather than pointing it out to the police . JMs testimony is tainted. And no proof that JB didn't in fact receive a call from his father.

So what insight do you have to say without any doubt at all that he did it.

Regarding the phone call. Try to put yourself in the position of anyone receiving an out of the blue call at around 3 am -it MAY turn out to be a wrong number or a hoax but you don't know that yet-  every sense is going to be on high alert anticipating the worst. It IS the worst. Someone in that person's family has gone mad. They've got hold of a gun. There are children in the house. The caller sounds panicked -TERRIFIED!!!!!!  If YOUR first instincts are to ignore the panic and terror, find the phone directory, diddle your way through it to look for a local -and probably unmanned- police station, phone a friend, then call yet another local numbered police station, rather than call 999 immediately, I TRULY hope no one in your family calls you in an emergency..........................

...........................Back to Jeremy. There was no sense of urgency when he relayed his story to the police other than the arrogant, last minute reprimand for keeping him waiting. The reason for this being that the call had been a fiction in which Jeremy had learned only the lines and not, what would naturally have been, the accompanying emotion which would have been conveyed to him.

Let's look at Julie and the immunity you allege she was given. A sprat to catch a mackerel? Bigger fish to fry? Actually, you're wrong when you say that she claimed a hit man was responsible. She claimed no such thing. She repeated what she claimed was told her by Jeremy...........................

...........................I WILL allow, however, that she knew more than she was willing to tell. If she provided Jeremy with the means to drug his family -albeit, it was a failure- she was obviously privy to what was happening. Might she have seen it as getting revenge on June for calling her a "harlot"? Might Jeremy have used it to get Julie on side?

That Julie may not have revealed to the court the full extent of her knowledge, points more to her deeper involvement AND Jeremy's guilt.

[Adam]

I don't care if you think I'm arrogant or not - it's clear from your posts that you don't know much about the case anyway! When you have sorted you fact from myth, then I might consider your opinion. Right now, you seem to be a newby with a chip or an agenda!

It's correct that Wiggy does not know much about the case. But I'm sure that will improve.

I recommend Roger Wilkes's book.

[Jan]

It's correct that Wiggy does not know much about the case. But I'm sure that will improve.

I recommend Roger Wilkes's book.

I recommend reading the documents in the archive here first before reading any books . And the CAL book is more up to date .

[wiggy]

Lol i love how you manage to judge other peoples reactions in the way you may react. Im afraid we all react in a different way we cant judge how others would react.

You keep trying to make out that i think e is innocent i have never said that i have no idea whether he is my gut would be that yes he probably did it.

But you keep saying there is all this forensic evidence ect there is not. You seem to think im just an idiot and although i would not profess to be as clever as any of you pro guilt folk there is still no evidence that allows for reasonable doubt.

Im sorry if you cant see there is any room for doubt.  This would not even get to court these days. There was so much incompetence from the police the conviction was tainted straight away.

The silencer would be inadmissible as evidence having been removed from the crime scene. JMs testimony would be stricken if the defense had argued she had received immunity plus was in negotiations to sell her story on a guilty verdict. There would have been no trial.