Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Adam on March 27, 2015, 10:54:AM
-
Jeremy told the police Neville may have said 'She' rather than 'Sheila' on the phone. This was after the police started speaking about Sheila being shot twice.
The theory that a female burglar or random psychopath had got into WHF, massacred everyone, framed Sheila and exited through the kitchen window, has been shot down before.
However there is no doubt everyone was caught by surprise -
Neville:
In his PJ's and bare footed. Obviously no time to dress or put slippers on. And no time to arm himself. He only had time to phone Jeremy. Before his 8 shots and brutal beating.
Everything suggests he got had just got out of bed.
June:
Fast asleep and shot in bed. She wasn't even given the chance to be caught by surprise.
Sheila:
In her nightie and barefooted so almost certainly had just got out of bed. Only time to go to her parents bedroom and retreat to the far corner.
Nicolas/Daniel:
Shot in bed while asleep.
Jeremy didn't commit the massacre. He has always said he was in bed when Neville called him. But Sheila has been ruled out as well.
There is no doubt everyone was caught by surprise, or killed before being given the chance to be caught by surprise. Perhaps the massacre was carried out by a female burglar or psychopath.
-
Perhaps,eh ??
-
the theory unrelated third party did is highly unlikely when i look at the evedence but not totally impossble.
-
Everyone was certainly not caught by surprise by Jeremy. He has said he was at his cottage.
But if it was Sheila, both Sheila and Neville would be fully or partially dressed. And June would be awake protecting the twins, who would have been awake.
-
But the twins weren't protected if they were shot,were they ? No sign of a scuffle/struggle as regards bedclothes and trying to protect them with as much bed-linen as possible ? They were unguarded as they were shot.
-
But the twins weren't protected if they were shot,were they ? No sign of a scuffle/struggle as regards bedclothes and trying to protect them with as much bed-linen as possible ? They were unguarded as they were shot.
Yes, that's because the random female psychopath/burglar had caught everyone by surprise. Picking up the rifle in the kitchen.
-
No signs of defence marks on Jeremy either,where 3 adults would have reached out at him to take the rifle from him.? This was purely an inside" job ",where there was no escape.
-
well they were still assleep when they were shot wich suggests to me they were shot first june would of been unable to protect them if they were allready dead.
-
well they were still assleep when they were shot wich suggests to me they were shot first june would of been unable to protect them if they were allready dead.
Yes,but who killed them if Sheila was downstairs with her father ?
-
i think the twins were shot first june second and nevile last nevile was downstairs because he went to get help
-
Does everyone agree that everyone at WHF was caught by surprise ?
This rules out Sheila as people say she had been up several hours, or not gone to bed at all.
And it rules out Jeremy as he says he was at his cottage, asleep.
-
i think the twins were shot first june second and nevile last nevile was downstairs because he went to get help
According to some of the " boffins " on here,they ALL died at the same time ?
-
id say that was pretty much impossble.
-
id say that was pretty much impossble.
Not according to those who see Jeremy as being guilty.
-
It was bad luck all round that everyone was caught by surprise by a random female psychopath/burglar.
And bad luck that Neville chose to ring Jeremy, which put him in the frame.
I wonder why Neville said 'she' to Jeremy ? Was he referring to a female who they both knew, other than Sheila ? He certainly was not referring to Sheila as the evidence rules her out.
-
Playing Devil's Advocate doesn't do it for me,Adam. It's not your style when you KNOW that Jeremy is guilty. There was NO psychopath and NO burglar.! It was a random domestic which WOULDN'T have happened if Sheila hadn't been there.Simple as that.
-
According to some of the " boffins " on here,they ALL died at the same time ?
Even the prosecution had argued that Sheila had died between midnight and 3am.?
-
But Jeremy said Neville may have said 'she'. And other people said a guilty Jeremy would never have phoned the police.
There is no question that everyone at WHF was caught by surprise. Which rules out Sheila. And Jeremy was asleep in his cottage.
The only way everyone could be caught by surprise was by a female burglar/random psychopath.
-
Even the prosecution had argued that Sheila had died between midnight and 3am.?
no time of death was given so we dont know when they died.
-
no time of death was given so we dont know when they died.
Exactly,nugs.Which has been my argument all along. No time of death given.
Because of it being such a big case at the time,a pathologist SHOULD have been sent to WHF in order to have given appx times of death. These are my thoughts anyway.
-
it was somtime after they had got ready for bed but nobody is certan what time they went to bed.
-
I really don't think that Neville went to bed,or even got as far as the bedroom itself. He was late finishing in the fields,then he took the dogs out,came back,probably had a drink of tea and a smoke,then showered and put his pyjamas on,so it would have been quite late/early morning when Sheila kicked off,if she hadn't already killed her mother and the twins.
It's the way I see it. The three upstairs could quite possibly have been killed while Neville was out with the dogs,so that Sheila only had to contend with her father,and with a few rapid shots would have put him out of action against trying to fight back.
-
Jeremy told the police Neville may have said 'She' rather than 'Sheila' on the phone. This was after the police started speaking about Sheila being shot twice.
The theory that a female burglar or random psychopath had got into WHF, massacred everyone, framed Sheila and exited through the kitchen window, has been shot down before.
However there is no doubt everyone was caught by surprise -
Neville:
In his PJ's and bare footed. Obviously no time to dress or put slippers on. And no time to arm himself. He only had time to phone Jeremy. Before his 8 shots and brutal beating.
Everything suggests he got had just got out of bed.
June:
Fast asleep and shot in bed. She wasn't even given the chance to be caught by surprise.
Sheila:
In her nightie and barefooted so almost certainly had just got out of bed. Only time to go to her parents bedroom and retreat to the far corner.
Nicolas/Daniel:
Shot in bed while asleep.
Jeremy didn't commit the massacre. He has always said he was in bed when Neville called him. But Sheila has been ruled out as well.
There is no doubt everyone was caught by surprise, or killed before being given the chance to be caught by surprise. Perhaps the massacre was carried out by a female burglar or psychopath.
The "she" that Jeremy spoke of referred to either June or Sheila. He said he wasn't sure which one Nevill meant and he said such when they told him Sheila could not have done it in which case he said it must have meant June.
Jeremy never suggested some third party female burglar.
-
No signs of defence marks on Jeremy either,where 3 adults would have reached out at him to take the rifle from him.? This was purely an inside" job ",where there was no escape.
What marks would be left on Jeremy? He was wearing shoes and gloves, the only damage the killer would have suffered would have been to his/her hands and feet and only if not wearing gloves and shoes. Sheila was barefoot and there were no bloody gloves found at the scene that she could have been wearing.
-
What marks would be left on Jeremy? He was wearing shoes and gloves, the only damage the killer would have suffered would have been to his/her hands and feet and only if not wearing gloves and shoes. Sheila was barefoot and there were no bloody gloves found at the scene that she could have been wearing.
Silly me,he was wearing a balaclava as well which wouldn't have shown scratches to his face and neck as Sheila landed out at him in defence of her boys.
-
Silly me,he was wearing a balaclava as well which wouldn't have shown scratches to his face and neck as Sheila landed out at him in defence of her boys.
What scratches would be on Jeremy's face? He had a long rifle aimed at his victims. Did they have arms like plasticman? Only with the gun empty could someone try to safely disarm him and that means only Nevill. Nevill was the only one who faced him when the gun was empty but had already been shot 4 times before the gun was empty and he tried to disarm Jeremy by trying to take the rifle away not scratching Jeremy like a girl does. His efforts to strip Jeremy of the weapon failed as Jeremy bludgeoned him with it.
-
What scratches would be on Jeremy's face? He had a long rifle aimed at his victims. Did they have arms like plasticman? Only with the gun empty could someone try to safely disarm him and that means only Nevill. Nevill was the only one who faced him when the gun was empty but had already been shot 4 times before the gun was empty and he tried to disarm Jeremy by trying to take the rifle away not scratching Jeremy like a girl does. His efforts to strip Jeremy of the weapon failed as Jeremy bludgeoned him with it.
Yes,I'm sure Sheila would have just stood back and watched while her children were being shot. The same as she herself lay down gracefully ready to be shot too.
-
Yes,I'm sure Sheila would have just stood back and watched while her children were being shot. The same as she herself lay down gracefully ready to be shot too.
They were shot in a different room than her so obviously were not shot in her presence. They were either shot before her while she was still in her room or after her. Jeremy could have told her to obey his commands or he would kill them as well. Your presumption he would have to have scratches is nonsense which you make up just to try to pretend Jeremy is innocent. Never do you actually look at the evidence and facts you instead choose to look at made up things by people who defend Jeremy and to make up some of your own as well to come to his defense.
The one more likely for people to try to disarm and to oppose was Sheila. She didn't ever use the weapon before and was weaker than Jeremy so much easier to disarm and challenge than he would be. So if the argument is that the killer would have to have wounds then that means Sheila would have to have wounds. She didn't- neither she nor Jeremy had any wounds which means quite clearly the killer wasn't wounded.
The only way for the killer not to have wounded feet would be if the killer had been wearing shoes and not to have a cut hand from the stock of the weapon breaking would be if the killer had been wearing gloves (gloves are the only way no prints of the killer would be found in the blood that was on the weapon as well). A killer with long nails using the rifle to bludgeon someone so forcefully that the stock broke would surely have damaged their nails in the process as well.
You and other Jeremy supporters ignore these things because you want to believe Jeremy is innocent. Ignoring them doesn't refute them which is what is required to establish his innocence. Establishing his innocence is the only way to convince objective rational people of his innocence and thus the only way to get him released from prison.
-
And where do you get all your " accurate " information from ?? Where ? Were you there,or know someone who was ? If not,then stop casting aspersions at my posts.
I,at least,know of someone who KNOWS an officer who was at the scene. Do you ?
-
I wonder who the mystery female burglar/psychopath was ?
The evidence has ruled out Sheila and Jeremy says he was at home when Neville phoned him.
Whoever she was, she choose the perfect time. Everyone asleep in their PJ's and nighties.
-
And where do you get all your " accurate " information from ?? Where ? Were you there,or know someone who was ? If not,then stop casting aspersions at my posts.
I,at least,know of someone who KNOWS an officer who was at the scene. Do you ?
Big deal that you know someone who knows an officer who was at the scene. That has no bearing on the facts or evidence at all.
I get my facts from the court decisions, the police records posted here and other sources that quote from the relevant documents/testimony. These are the proper places to look for the facts. I take the evidence and actually apply it and that is how I come to my beliefs as opposed to deciding what I would like to believe then seeking out evidence to support what I would like to argue and ignoring any evidence that refutes what I would like to argue. When one follows the evidence it suggests Sheila voluntarily was hospitalized 2 times. There is nothing that indicates she was sectioned.
-
Big deal that you know someone who knows an officer who was at the scene. That has no bearing on the facts or evidence at all.
I get my facts from the court decisions, the police records posted here and other sources that quote from the relevant documents/testimony. These are the proper places to look for the facts. I take the evidence and actually apply it and that is how I come to my beliefs as opposed to deciding what I would like to believe then seeking out evidence to support what I would like to argue and ignoring any evidence that refutes what I would like to argue. When one follows the evidence it suggests Sheila voluntarily was hospitalized 2 times. There is nothing that indicates she was sectioned.
But Scip, this is not a court room drama. This is a forum made up of a variety of individuals who have no degrees in forensic science, court of law or policing. We are not expert enough to solve mysteries and prove points of law because we are not qualified to do so. Apart from NGB, there is no one here to my knowledge that comes close to being an expert in any of those categories, I have mentioned. Maybe we are not clever enough to supply you with the satisfactory answers you seek, in order for you to continue your good arguments. Or maybe I just speak for myself, I do not know.
What I do know is that Lookout get hit on every time she makes a post not just by one person but by many at any given time and to me that is a sign of bullying.
Lookout wont like what I am about to say, but I am saying it anyway. Lookout is a pensioner and I can say that she can look after herself, but I am a person that has been brought up to look after the elders and give them total respect. So can I ask that people back off a bit please, because one its upsetting to see and two you have no idea how you are making this elderly lady feel. I feel for her...
-
But Scip, this is not a court room drama. This is a forum made up of a variety of individuals who have no degrees in forensic science, court of law or policing. We are not expert enough to solve mysteries and prove points of law because we are not qualified to do so. Apart from NGB, there is no one here to my knowledge that comes close to being an expert in any of those categories, I have mentioned. Maybe we are not clever enough to supply you with the satisfactory answers you seek, in order for you to continue your good arguments. Or maybe I just speak for myself, I do not know.
What I do know is that Lookout get hit on every time she makes a post not just by one person but by many at any given time and to me that is a sign of bullying.
Lookout wont like what I am about to say, but I am saying it anyway. Lookout is a pensioner and I can say that she can look after herself, but I am a person that has been brought up to look after the elders and give them total respect. So can I ask that people back off a bit please, because one its upsetting to see and two you have no idea how you are making this elderly lady feel. I feel for her...
Are you saying that because Lookout is a pensioner, we are not allowed to question what she says? Even when it is clearly incorrect?
-
Are you saying that because Lookout is a pensioner, we are not allowed to question what she says? Even when it is clearly incorrect?
I think members have been VERY clear on attacking the POST and not Lookout PERSONALLY. The only people I have seen mention her age are Adam and Patti. Age shouldn't be an excuse to flippantly post what you like. Surely BOTH sides should question her accusation that Sheila was sectioned?
-
But Scip, this is not a court room drama. This is a forum made up of a variety of individuals who have no degrees in forensic science, court of law or policing. We are not expert enough to solve mysteries and prove points of law because we are not qualified to do so. Apart from NGB, there is no one here to my knowledge that comes close to being an expert in any of those categories, I have mentioned. Maybe we are not clever enough to supply you with the satisfactory answers you seek, in order for you to continue your good arguments. Or maybe I just speak for myself, I do not know.
What I do know is that Lookout get hit on every time she makes a post not just by one person but by many at any given time and to me that is a sign of bullying.
Lookout wont like what I am about to say, but I am saying it anyway. Lookout is a pensioner and I can say that she can look after herself, but I am a person that has been brought up to look after the elders and give them total respect. So can I ask that people back off a bit please, because one its upsetting to see and two you have no idea how you are making this elderly lady feel. I feel for her...
I'm certain the above is well meant and I'm just as certain that Lookout won't thank you for it. I don't think she'd care to be seen in the light you present her in.................but I could be wrong.
There are occasions when Lookout appears to pull stuff out of the ether -saying she'd read it on line or on forum with nothing else to back it up- and present it as fact. This would be irritating if it was you or I who was responsible. It has NOTHING to do with age. I had a friend in her 90's who was a Phd and lectured at a university until she was nearly 80. She'd have SLAUGHTERED me if I'd suggested something was age related.
-
But Scip, this is not a court room drama. This is a forum made up of a variety of individuals who have no degrees in forensic science, court of law or policing. We are not expert enough to solve mysteries and prove points of law because we are not qualified to do so. Apart from NGB, there is no one here to my knowledge that comes close to being an expert in any of those categories, I have mentioned. Maybe we are not clever enough to supply you with the satisfactory answers you seek, in order for you to continue your good arguments. Or maybe I just speak for myself, I do not know.
What I do know is that Lookout get hit on every time she makes a post not just by one person but by many at any given time and to me that is a sign of bullying.
Lookout wont like what I am about to say, but I am saying it anyway. Lookout is a pensioner and I can say that she can look after herself, but I am a person that has been brought up to look after the elders and give them total respect. So can I ask that people back off a bit please, because one its upsetting to see and two you have no idea how you are making this elderly lady feel. I feel for her...
Lookout gets hit by multiple people because she doesn't want to change her views and stands by claims even after they are shown to be wrong. It takes multiple people to convince her she is wrong and even at that she often doesn't change her stance. Challenging a point that is wrong is challenging the point it is not attacking her as a person.
Trying to help her to avoid the mistake of quoting opinion of commentators and elevating such to fact is not to be mean it is constructive.
Someone doesn't need a degree to be able to evaluate the evidence in this case one just needs common sense and the willingness to actually look at the available evidence. We are lucky because instead of just the characterization of records from court documents we have a lot of records here to look through and read if desired. We don't have all of them but do have a lot.
-
Lookout gets hit by multiple people because she doesn't want to change her views and stands by claims even after they are shown to be wrong. It takes multiple people to convince her she is wrong and even at that she often doesn't change her stance. Challenging a point that is wrong is challenging the point it is not attacking her as a person.
Trying to help her to avoid the mistake of quoting opinion of commentators and elevating such to fact is not to be mean it is constructive.
Someone doesn't need a degree to be able to evaluate the evidence in this case one just needs common sense and the willingness to actually look at the available evidence. We are lucky because instead of just the characterization of records from court documents we have a lot of records here to look through and read if desired. We don't have all of them but do have a lot.
Lookout is entitled to have whatever views she wishes. She has clearly made up her mind that JB is innocent. I'm not even sure she would believe it if JB finally confessed.
In support of Lookout, I know of qualified people (professors of law for example) who jumped on the bandwagon following a certain someone's confession, and questioned it's authenticity.
Many of us on this forum today have at one time or another believed one thing and then changed that belief.
-
Lookout is a cool lady, she listens to Eminem (I think - or was it some other younger musician?). ;D
-
Alias lookout is a very cool lady not sure what her choice in music is but know she loves cats ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Alias lookout is a very cool lady not sure what her choice in music is but know she loves cats ;D ;D ;D ;D
Cats are cool too! ;D ;D I would like to have a cat or two, but I won´t since I live in an apartment in the center of the city. There is no way cats could go outside here, and I think they need to.
I love taking threads off topic! 8) 8) 8)
-
Cats are cool too! ;D ;D I would like to have a cat or two, but I won´t since I live in an apartment in the center of the city. There is no way cats could go outside here, and I think they need to.
I love taking threads off topic! 8) 8) 8)
You are a naughty cat lady, alias ;)
-
You are a naughty cat lady, alias ;)
;) ;)
-
Cats are cool too! ;D ;D I would like to have a cat or two, but I won´t since I live in an apartment in the center of the city. There is no way cats could go outside here, and I think they need to.
I love taking threads off topic! 8) 8) 8)
Alias I love it too ;D ;D ;D
-
Alias I love it too ;D ;D ;D
It just happens, doesn´t it?! Jeremy Bamber, blah, blah, blah, silencer, DRB/1 (Item 348), blah, blood spatter, idiot, bias, Blahblahblahblahblah, clown... etc etc - sometimes it is just too much and it is nicer to talk about cats - or hot guys - or whatever! ;D
BUT, back on topic, not that I feel like saying anything! :P ::)
-
It just happens, doesn´t it?! Jeremy Bamber, blah, blah, blah, silencer, DRB/1 (Item 348), blah, blood spatter, idiot, bias, Blahblahblahblahblah, clown... etc etc - sometimes it is just too much and it is nicer to talk about cats - or hot guys - or whatever! ;D
BUT, back on topic, not that I feel like saying anything! :P ::)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
It just happens, doesn´t it?! Jeremy Bamber, blah, blah, blah, silencer, DRB/1 (Item 348), blah, blood spatter, idiot, bias, Blahblahblahblahblah, clown... etc etc - sometimes it is just too much and it is nicer to talk about cats - or hot guys - or whatever! ;D
BUT, back on topic, not that I feel like saying anything! :P ::)
Hahahahaha Hot guys would be a subject. Coooooooooor! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
But Scip, this is not a court room drama. This is a forum made up of a variety of individuals who have no degrees in forensic science, court of law or policing. We are not expert enough to solve mysteries and prove points of law because we are not qualified to do so. Apart from NGB, there is no one here to my knowledge that comes close to being an expert in any of those categories, I have mentioned. Maybe we are not clever enough to supply you with the satisfactory answers you seek, in order for you to continue your good arguments. Or maybe I just speak for myself, I do not know.
What I do know is that Lookout get hit on every time she makes a post not just by one person but by many at any given time and to me that is a sign of bullying.
Lookout wont like what I am about to say, but I am saying it anyway. Lookout is a pensioner and I can say that she can look after herself, but I am a person that has been brought up to look after the elders and give them total respect. So can I ask that people back off a bit please, because one its upsetting to see and two you have no idea how you are making this elderly lady feel. I feel for her...
I agree that Lookout seems to be the target at the moment - but she is one feisty lady . I am sure she will put certain posters on ignore if she wants a breather if they persist in being personal .As I have done .
-
why has this thread got replies when it was not a genuine question - more a sarcastic dig?
-
why has this thread got replies when it was not a genuine question - more a sarcastic dig?
With four people shot in or by the bed, and Neville and Sheila barefoot in their PJ's/nightie, do you not believe everyone was caught by surprise ?
The evidence rules out Sheila, and Jeremy was at his cottage. So everyone must have been caught by surprise by a female random burglar/psychopath.
-
Not sure why my post was edited. It is not abusive to anyone after other posters brought up the issue. Anyway, here it is again.
Lookout is able to look after herself. I have had to report her several times for being abusive.
The problem is when she posts xxxxxxx, xxx xxxxx xxx xxxxxx, and Scipio reads it, he won't hold back. His long posts focusing on the evidence will totally undermine her posts.
This has got so bad, that other people have brought up her age, saying posters should not be so hard on her.
This is a similar situation to the xxx xxx xxx xxxxxx on here, xxxxxxx. I was informed that he was xxx xxx xxx so it would be xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx xxx xxx when he xxx xxx xxxxx xxxxxxx.
-
Not sure why my post was edited. It is not abusive to anyone after other posters brought up the issue. Anyway, here it is again.
Lookout is able to look after herself. I have had to report her several times for being abusive.
The problem is when she xxxxx xxx xxxxx xxx xxxxxx, and Scipio reads it, he won't hold back. His long posts focusing on the evidence will totally undermine her posts.
This has got so bad, that other people have brought up her age, saying posters should not be so hard on her.
This is a similar situation to the most xxxxxxx xxxxxx on here, xxxxxxx, I was informed that he was xxx xxx xxxx so it would be inappropriate to xxx xxx when he xxxxxother posters
The post was edited due to personal remarks about another posters mode of posting please stick to the subject not the poster.
You have also personally attacked an ex-poster who is not a member of the forum and therefore can't defend himself. Your opinions about other people are no more acceptable than anyone elses.
If you repost this again the post will be removed and a ban considered. Thaks
-
This topic has been moved to hidden threads
Please give it a rest Adam, I'm locking this thread for now and if you continue this I shall ban you.
-
Lookout is a cool lady, she listens to Eminem (I think - or was it some other younger musician?). ;D
Yes,Marshall Mathers aka Eminem----8 mile " Lose Yourself " ( you've only got one chance ) He made good in the depths of Detroit,whereas he could have gone the way of other gangsters.
-
Not sure why my last post was removed. It was not abusive and mentioned no names. Anyway, here it is again -
The most abusive poster on here can defend himself whenever he wants.
It is common knowledge he is not well. He created a thread himself on this. Another moderator informed me this is why he is not banned when he abuses people.
I PM'd you after he posted 'fuck off bitch but did not get response.
Another regular poster will be the first to admit her posts leave her wide open to another posters attacks. But chooses to continue posting.
-
Jeremy told the police Neville may have said 'She' rather than 'Sheila' on the phone. This was after the police started speaking about Sheila being shot twice.
The theory that a female burglar or random psychopath had got into WHF, massacred everyone, framed Sheila and exited through the kitchen window, has been shot down before.
However there is no doubt everyone was caught by surprise -
Neville:
In his PJ's and bare footed. Obviously no time to dress or put slippers on. And no time to arm himself. He only had time to phone Jeremy. Before his 8 shots and brutal beating.
Everything suggests he got had just got out of bed.
June:
Fast asleep and shot in bed. She wasn't even given the chance to be caught by surprise.
Sheila:
In her nightie and barefooted so almost certainly had just got out of bed. Only time to go to her parents bedroom and retreat to the far corner.
Nicolas/Daniel:
Shot in bed while asleep.
Jeremy didn't commit the massacre. He has always said he was in bed when Neville called him. But Sheila has been ruled out as well.
There is no doubt everyone was caught by surprise, or killed before being given the chance to be caught by surprise. Perhaps the massacre was carried out by a female burglar or psychopath.
Rather than quote only part of what Jeremy actually told police during interview, why not go the whole hog?
(1) - Sheila's
(2) - She has
(3) - He has
They all phonetically sound the same, or vey similar to one another, so ought the title to this thread have been, "Everyone caught by surprise - by an unknown male"?
-
It was lucky the police jogged Jeremy's memory at the police interview.
He was adamant Neville said 'Sheila' to him. And justified this by telling the police all about her. But realised Neville may have said 'she' after the police mentioned Sheila shooting herself twice.
He should be thanking the police rather than making complaints about them.
-
It was lucky the police jogged Jeremy's memory at the police interview.
He was adamant Neville said 'Sheila' to him. And justified this by telling the police all about her. But realised Neville may have said 'she' after the police mentioned Sheila shooting herself twice.
He should be thanking the police rather than making complaints about them.
Why is it lucky ? I am not sure I understand your point?