outlandish Theory's

[lookout]

You have doubt, many of us don't. Two jury members had doubt - the rest didn't. I can honestly say I have no doubt whatsoever that he is guilty. Although I do agree that some of the evidence (silencer) is a bit ropey.

" The silencer is a bit ropey ". It was pivotal in this case and the main argument that had him convicted ?
Yet you say that you have" no doubt whatsoever that he is guilty ?".
Remove the silencer and what have you got ?

[Jane]

" The silencer is a bit ropey ". It was pivotal in this case and the main argument that had him convicted ?
Yet you say that you have" no doubt whatsoever that he is guilty ?".
Remove the silencer and what have you got ?

It's more a question of what we HAVEN'T got, Lookout, ie a phone call from Nevill.

[lookout]

It's more a question of what we HAVEN'T got, Lookout, ie a phone call from Nevill.

What we HAVEN'T got is any forensic evidence.

[Jane]

What we HAVEN'T got is any forensic evidence.

Lookout, I won't attempt to debate forensics. They're not my "thing" but I understand that even in the case of very little, circumstantial is enough and in this case, given that WHF was his second home, traces of him could have been found -and explained- all over the house. What value forensics then?

[Steve_uk]

The silencer was forensic evidence of a kind, though nobody is jumping for joy at it, apart from the relatives and maybe Julie.

[Jane]

The silencer was forensic evidence of a kind, though nobody is jumping for joy at it, apart from the relatives and maybe Julie.

There definitely seems to be a question mark there, Steve. It certainly gave the relatives extra clout whilst taking some of the heat away from Julie.

[Caroline]

What we HAVEN'T got is any forensic evidence.

http://www.theforensicteacher.com/Evidence.html

[David1819]

The silencer was forensic evidence of a kind, though nobody is jumping for joy at it, apart from the relatives and maybe Julie.

The silencer is fundamental to the prosecution. I don't understand how some people think the silencer is unreliable or manufactured and still believe Jeremy is guilty.

[Caroline]

The silencer is fundamental to the prosecution. I don't understand how some people think the silencer is unreliable or manufactured and still believe Jeremy is guilty.

I think Jeremy is guilty because the story about the phone call is BS, he's been caught out in lies and Julie's testimony shows he's guilty. Apart from that, it is an impossibility to shoot yourself with a rifle at a 45 degree angle and the scene was clearly staged. What's not to understand?

[notsure]

Very interesting read caroline on circumstantial evidence and backs up what ive thought all along.

Its like telling someone a story and getting everyone to believe its true,  wether it is or not it is, is  a different matter. The prosecution should not be allowed to withold evidence when prosecuting on circumstantial,  i believe that is unfair and very dangerous

it would be interesting to know what percentage of MOJs  are based on circumstantial evidence.

Having said all that now i understand about  the call logs i can see he really has very little to base an appeal on.

[Caroline]

" The silencer is a bit ropey ". It was pivotal in this case and the main argument that had him convicted ?
Yet you say that you have" no doubt whatsoever that he is guilty ?".
Remove the silencer and what have you got ?

Jeremy killing the family minus the silencer? 

[Caroline]

Very interesting read caroline on circumstantial evidence and backs up what ive thought all along.

Its like telling someone a story and getting everyone to believe its true, wether it is or not it is, is  a different matter. The prosecution should not be allowed to withold evidence when prosecuting on circumstantial,  i believe that is unfair and very dangerous

it would be interesting to know what percentage of MOJs  are based on circumstantial evidence.

Having said all that now i understand about  the call logs i can see he really has very little to base an appeal on.

Isn't that what some people do here? But without ANY basis?

[Jane]

Isn't that what some people do here? But without ANY basis?

Ain't that the truth............................which is a more than can be said for some of the utter FILTH that's been posted here and sworn to be the truth.

[Caroline]

Ain't that the truth............................which is a more than can be said for some of the utter FILTH that's been posted here and sworn to be the truth.

[wiggy]

what is truth what do we know about this case to be true .

we know that jm made a call to the police and was told to meet them at the farm.

We know that the when the forensic photos were taken the scene had been re staged as per the photos with the gun in different positions,

We know the silencer was not fount at the scene by the police

we know jm was bitter about being cheated on by JM

We know Sheila had serious mental health issues.

We know there were certain officers whom have admitted that they took a dislike to JB straight away

everything else is circumstantial  The logs and statements are so unclear any recordings of the calls destroyed evidence withheld from the defense there is a state ment that has one of the pages clearly retyped on a different typewriter.

There are very few actual truths in the case is about creating a story to try and fit the circumstances. And however much sense it makes it certainly not based on fact or truth.