Was it, "She has the gun" or "Sheila has the gun" ?

[adam]

After the police suggested Sheila did not kill herself, Jeremy said Neville may have said 'she' rather than 'Sheila' on the phone. Rather than refuse to accept what the police were saying.

Eh ? Who is this mysterious 'she' ?

A random woman that broke into a remote farm house at 3.00am. And then allowed Neville to ring Jeremy. Before firing 26 bullets into men, women and children. And giving Neville a brutal beating. Without taking anything. Then leaving through the kitchen window, banging it shut. Leaving the rifle on Sheila !

Perhaps it was Ann Eaton ?

Bamber seemed quite sure it was Sheila when he spent several hours insinuating her outside WHF,  and afterwards. Funny how he changed.

Anyway Bamber is innocent. So it was a 'she', or the dog that fired the second shot. Or perhaps as is now claimed by the man himself, Sheila did shoot herself twice, going on an extended walkabout between the first and second shot.

[Holly Goodhead]

After the police suggested Sheila did not kill herself, Jeremy said Neville may have said 'she' rather than 'Sheila' on the phone. Rather than refuse to accept what the police were saying.

Eh ? Who is this mysterious 'she' ?

A random woman that broke into a remote farm house at 3.00am. And then allowed Neville to ring Jeremy. Before firing 26 bullets into men, women and children. And giving Neville a brutal beating. Without taking anything. Then leaving through the kitchen window, banging it shut. Leaving the rifle on Sheila !

Perhaps it was Ann Eaton ?

Bamber seemed quite sure it was Sheila when he spent several hours insinuating her outside WHF,  and afterwards. Funny how he changed.

Anyway Bamber is innocent. So it was a 'she', or the dog that fired the second shot. Or perhaps as is now claimed by the man himself, Sheila did shoot herself twice, going on an extended walkabout between the first and second shot.

The police didn't suggest SC didn't kill herself they told JB during his police interviews that it had been proved SC could not have killed herself and she was murdered. They lied.  JB simply played them at their own game 

[scipio_usmc]

The police didn't suggest SC didn't kill herself they told JB during his police interviews that it had been proved SC could not have killed herself and she was murdered. They lied.  JB simply played them at their own game 

Which was very stupid.  You should not lie and play games because it makes you look even more guilty when you do so.  You ignore all his lies because you don't want to face reality including his lies to police at the scene when he told them that Sheila fired all weapons on the house.  To rational people such lies are extremely harmful.

[Holly Goodhead]

Which was very stupid.  You should not lie and play games because it makes you look even more guilty when you do so.  You ignore all his lies because you don't want to face reality including his lies to police at the scene when he told them that Sheila fired all weapons on the house.  To rational people such lies are extremely harmful.

Police interviews conducted under caution and recorded by way of written transcripts take precedence over anything JB may or may not have said on the night of the murders.  EP lied to JB during his interviews that's what you need to remember.

[scipio_usmc]

Police interviews conducted under caution and recorded by way of written transcripts take precedence over anything JB may or may not have said on the night of the murders.  EP lied to JB during his interviews that's what you need to remember.

Lying is permitted to some extent.  It is used to catch liars like Jeremy.  But Jeremy lied to police right away the night of the murders and multiple times during his interrogation.  He contradicted himself numerous times and kept changing his story.

The night of the murders he told police Sheila fired all wepaons int he house and he had taught her how to use the murder weapon.  By the time of his first statement he changed this to no knowing her to ever fire a weapon.  During his interrogation he initially stated that he had not used the murder weapon a week to fortnight prior to his fairytale of getting it out of shoot rabbits.  That meant Anthony was the last known user of the weapon.  Afte rpolice pointed out Anthony was the last known user of the weapon and put it away with the moderator and scope attached he changed his story and claimed he repeatedly used the gun each day of the week prior to the murders. He forgot he used it many times the week before and simply made a mistake saying he had not touched it a week to fortnight before? 

Worse for him is that no one ever knew him to shoot vermin he only used the rifle to target shoot. Prior to purchasing the rifle they had various shotguns he could have used on vermin but he never did.  There is nothing that supports after the rifle was purchased him changing his mind about not wanting to shoot animals and using the rifle to shoot vermin.  So this suggests his story about taking the gun out to shoot rabbits th enight of hthe murders is a fairytale.  His claim he got it because he heard the rabbit makes it even less credible as does the time of day.  Worst of all though, he staged bullets to support his lie.  He staged too many and that helped prove he staged them.  It his story about taking out the gun and bullets out had been true then he would not have needed to stage the bullets. 

Lawyers don't want clients to speak for a reason and it is true in civil cases as well as criminal. If they contradict themself it is not good.  Furthermore if they make a claim it hamstrings their lawyer.  A lawyer is either forced to admit the claim is true or to try to convince a jury it is no true and come up with some excuse for why they made a claim that is untrue. Either way it is harmful. If they remain silent they can't say something that ends up screwing them. That is the reason why lawyers say to remain silent.

 

[Holly Goodhead]

Lying is permitted to some extent.  It is used to catch liars like Jeremy.  But Jeremy lied to police right away the night of the murders and multiple times during his interrogation.  He contradicted himself numerous times and kept changing his story.

The night of the murders he told police Sheila fired all wepaons int he house and he had taught her how to use the murder weapon.  By the time of his first statement he changed this to no knowing her to ever fire a weapon.  During his interrogation he initially stated that he had not used the murder weapon a week to fortnight prior to his fairytale of getting it out of shoot rabbits.  That meant Anthony was the last known user of the weapon.  Afte rpolice pointed out Anthony was the last known user of the weapon and put it away with the moderator and scope attached he changed his story and claimed he repeatedly used the gun each day of the week prior to the murders. He forgot he used it many times the week before and simply made a mistake saying he had not touched it a week to fortnight before? 

Worse for him is that no one ever knew him to shoot vermin he only used the rifle to target shoot. Prior to purchasing the rifle they had various shotguns he could have used on vermin but he never did.  There is nothing that supports after the rifle was purchased him changing his mind about not wanting to shoot animals and using the rifle to shoot vermin.  So this suggests his story about taking the gun out to shoot rabbits th enight of hthe murders is a fairytale.  His claim he got it because he heard the rabbit makes it even less credible as does the time of day.  Worst of all though, he staged bullets to support his lie.  He staged too many and that helped prove he staged them.  It his story about taking out the gun and bullets out had been true then he would not have needed to stage the bullets. 

Lawyers don't want clients to speak for a reason and it is true in civil cases as well as criminal. If they contradict themself it is not good.  Furthermore if they make a claim it hamstrings their lawyer.  A lawyer is either forced to admit the claim is true or to try to convince a jury it is no true and come up with some excuse for why they made a claim that is untrue. Either way it is harmful. If they remain silent they can't say something that ends up screwing them. That is the reason why lawyers say to remain silent.

Paul if you want to talk about lies, omissions etc in WS's may I suggest you look at JM's WS of 8th Aug and her later ones on 8th/9th Sept.

[scipio_usmc]

Paul if you want to talk about lies, omissions etc in WS's may I suggest you look at JM's WS of 8th Aug and her later ones on 8th/9th Sept.

I am talking about Jeremy giving 2 different versions at 2 different times not simply omissions.

At any rate why did she originally omit the harmful evidence?  To protect Jeremy of course. She eventually told the truth when she either no longer desired to protect him or her conscience would not allow it or her friend told police the truth and she had no choice but to tell the truth at that point. 

[John]

It could have been either, I think Jeremy made it up as he went and changed his story occasionally when he forgot what he had said the first time.

Just like the sequence of the claimed call from Nevill and the call he made to Julie.