Police log contents, and position of bodies in photographs don't add up, CRIKEY.

[Caroline]

We can't assume what a jury might think, can we? A jury with no knowledge about the case might think the call existed, or may not?

It would be interesting to see a mock case, with names changed but with all the evidence presented, and have an outcome?

In fact I think it would be cheaper to reenact the case with a jury using any new evidence rather that use the CCRC. Maybe the latter will be more efficient in the future....Ok Maybe I know something! 

I agree and have suggested this in the past. It would be interesting if there was aTV programme based on real cases (with and MOJ claim) to see how things 'might' turn out were they sent for appeal.

[scipio_usmc]

Jeremy made up the call from his father it never existed he made up this call because he wanted to make up an alibi.

Where is the proof? Where is the proof that a call did not exist? Where is the proof it did?

It can't be proved either way and that is a fact an arguable fact that will go on and on....but what would a jury of today think? 

The proof he made it up in order of importance is:

1) Evidence proves Sheila didn't load the gun, fire the gun or beat anyone with the gun and was murdered along with everyone else therefore Nevill would nto have had any reason to call Jeremy claiming the things Jeremy claims

2) Nevill had no opportunity to make a phone call to anyone, the killer entered the master bedroom and fired a full magazine at June and Nevill.  Because Jeremy removed the phone from the phone from the bedroom and placed it in the kitchen (for no valid reason since the kitchen phone was not broken like he claimed) there was no phone for Nevill to use before being shot.  His jaw/throat injury prevented him from being able to speak if he phoned someone.

3) Jeremy's actions are totally inconsistent with the actions of someone receiving the call he alleges to have received.  Someone in his place would have either rushed over or dialed 999,  he did neither he called Julie (some roommates place the timing of that call before he even claims Nevill phoned him) and then wasted time looking up police numbers.

4) Julie said Jeremy told her in advance of the murders he planned to pretend he received a call from WHF.

5) If Sheila had gotten the gun Nevill would have disarmed her or armed himself to oppose her or if too scared to do either would have phoned 999 not his son.

[scipio_usmc]

We can't assume what a jury might think, can we? A jury with no knowledge about the case might think the call existed, or may not?

It would be interesting to see a mock case, with names changed but with all the evidence presented, and have an outcome?

In fact I think it would be cheaper to reenact the case with a jury using any new evidence rather that use the CCRC. Maybe the latter will be more efficient in the future....Ok Maybe I know something! 

The CCRC is essentially a filter to alleviate the workload of the Appeal Courts so that they don't have to do the filtering themselves of what is worthless crap.  That is not to say the CCRC is perfect and doesn't let some crap through but the workload would be far more rigorous.   

[Reader]

Jeremy made up the call from Nevill and could not remember when he initially told police the call came.

So in spite of it being, according to you, part of Jeremy's plan, he forgot it.

He wanted to see his statement so he could remain consistent with it.  Since he wasn't allowed to see it he wasn't able to do that so said he could not remember anymore and simply deferred to his statement.

Had he been shown it, he might have recalled why he gave that particular time. You are merely guessing why he wasn't shown it. Even if he'd seen it and then decided he hadn't known the time (and possibly gave a poor estimate), it would have made little difference. The time he gave was well before the time of 3:25am he gave for when he called Julie, so it didn't affect the order of those calls. Only later did the police try to suggest he called Julie at around 3am, and that failed at his trial, as Julie's flatmates didn't agree about when Jeremy called.

[Caroline]

So in spite of it being, according to you, part of Jeremy's plan, he forgot it.



Had he been shown it, he might have recalled why he gave that particular time. You are merely guessing why he wasn't shown it. Even if he'd seen it and then decided he hadn't known the time (and possibly gave a poor estimate), it would have made little difference. The time he gave was well before the time of 3:25am he gave for when he called Julie, so it didn't affect the order of those calls. Only later did the police try to suggest he called Julie at around 3am, and that failed at his trial, as Julie's flatmates didn't agree about when Jeremy called.

You can't plan for every eventuality, especially when the plan includes lies. Ever heard the saying 'Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive?

So he said he called Julie at 03:25? But he said he called the police before calling Julie! He's now agreeing with the original time of calling the police at 03:36 - so either he's lying about who he called first, the time he called the police or both! (I'd say both!).

[scipio_usmc]

So in spite of it being, according to you, part of Jeremy's plan, he forgot it.Had he been shown it, he might have recalled why he gave that particular time. You are merely guessing why he wasn't shown it. Even if he'd seen it and then decided he hadn't known the time (and possibly gave a poor estimate), it would have made little difference. The time he gave was well before the time of 3:25am he gave for when he called Julie, so it didn't affect the order of those calls. Only later did the police try to suggest he called Julie at around 3am, and that failed at his trial, as Julie's flatmates didn't agree about when Jeremy called.

Julie's flatmates all agreed it was before 3:15 and the ones who said they looked at their clocks insisted it was around 3AM.

In the meantime I am not guessing at all about why Jeremy wasn't shown his statements when he asked.  He wanted to see what he wrote so he could be in sync but police refused to let him see so that he would be forced to try to be consistent on his own without being able to simply copy. It is standard practice to try to catch suspect in conflicts and then grill them over such conflicts.  They frequently end up admitting the truth when police do such.  Lawyers do the same thing to witnesses on the stand- we look for inconsistencies to break them.

[Caroline]

Julie's flatmates all agreed it was before 3:15 and the ones who said they looked at their clocks insisted it was around 3AM.

In the meantime I am not guessing at all about why Jeremy wasn't shown his statements when he asked.  He wanted to see what he wrote so he could be in sync but police refused to let him see so that he would be forced to try to be consistent on his own without being able to simply copy. It is standard practice to try to catch suspect in conflicts and then grill them over such conflicts.  They frequently end up admitting the truth when police do such.  Lawyers do the same thing to witnesses on the stand- we look for inconsistencies to break them.

If everyone was allowed to see their statements, you would never catch out anyone in a lie.

[Reader]

How come, then, the police didn't ask Jeremy about when he rang Julie (about 3:25, according to his statement)?

[Reader]

. . . he said he called the police before calling Julie!

Not in his first statement. You're forming that conclusion by combining various things that he said in that statement that were inaccurate. However, the inaccuracies were minor. For example, he didn't say that he'd looked up a number for the police before calling them, instead saying he'd called them immediately.

[scipio_usmc]

How come, then, the police didn't ask Jeremy about when he rang Julie (about 3:25, according to his statement)?

He said he could not remember whether he called her before or after police even. He deferred to his statement as to everything related to the timings of the calls.  He didn't want to get caught in a lie so that was the best he could do was say he could not remember.  The problem with that is he was telling police a month later he could not remember then a year later at his trial he testified he remembered calling Julie after police. How did his memory improve a year later?

[Alias]

It is plausible that you don´t remeber what happens right after a loved one dies, It did happen to me.

[scipio_usmc]

Not in his first statement. You're forming that conclusion by combining various things that he said in that statement that were inaccurate. However, the inaccuracies were minor. For example, he didn't say that he'd looked up a number for the police before calling them, instead saying he'd called them immediately.

He did so say he called Julie after police in his statement.  You lie as much as Mike and look just as pathetic as a result.  How many times do I have to post the following in this thread?




It explicitly states he received the call from Nevill around 3:10 immediately called Chelmsford after it and subsequently around 3:25 called Julie.  In no uncertain terms he claimed he called Chelmsford before Julie.   

this is the statement that in his interrogation he deferred to.

At trial he reiterated the claim that he called Chelmsford before Julie. His trial testimony is most important of all that is what the Jury heard first hand.

Like Mike you play dishonest games that are all too transparent and fail so are pointless.

[Caroline]

Not in his first statement. You're forming that conclusion by combining various things that he said in that statement that were inaccurate. However, the inaccuracies were minor. For example, he didn't say that he'd looked up a number for the police before calling them, instead saying he'd called them immediately.

His statement was inaccurate? NO! Really?? Surly not? 

[scipio_usmc]

It is plausible that you don´t remeber what happens right after a loved one dies, It did happen to me.

He didn't claim his memory was shaky right after the murders. Mid September he said that he could no longer remember what happened a month earlier and only after it was pointed out he slipped up and admitted he called Julie first he realized he slipped up so claimed he could not remember.

So he claimed his memory was fresh right after the murders but not fresh a month later which is attributed to passage of time not emotional turmoil.  His claim he forgot because the passage of time would be plausible for the exact times but less so for whether he called police first or Julie first that is something that should not be difficult to remember. It is suspicious then that a year later on the witness stand instead of saying he could not remember to say he could remember in detail calling police first.

This helps prove the said he could not remember during his interrogation to avoid further contradicting himself. Yet he ended up contradicting himself on the stand by saying he gained his memory back.  So he was inconsistent anyway. That's the kind of thing where he should have remained consistent and said he could not remember and would stand by what he said in his statement when it was fresh in his mind. 

[Reader]

He did so say he called Julie after police in his statement.

No, Jeremy stated he called the police immediately after he received a call from his father. That use of "immediately" was one of the minor mistakes. He tried to call his father back, etc., so his call to the police was not immediate. He gave the time of 3:25 for when he called Julie further on in his statement, but that doesn't imply that his call to Julie occurred after he called the police if the time of 3:10 he gave for his father's call was inaccurate. At the time, it would have made sense for Jeremy to use time information given to him by the police to help him estimate when events occurred, as it wouldn't have occurred to him that the police had given him inaccurate information.