How Did JB Commit The Killings

[Holly Goodhead]

Sheila Caffell was incapable of scrapping with Nevill over the kitchen table but then the pathologist never said she wasn't. Only someone reasonably tall and most definitely strong could have fought and overpowered Nevill Bamber. Your grasping at straws does you no favours Holly. Bamber is guilt and you will realise this in time.

But that's your interpretation not the pathologists.  The pathologist has always made clear he did not see anything at soc SC was incapable of and he was unable to conclude murder or suicide.

Dr Vanezis is a highly qualified expert of long experience with an unblemished career and I don't understand why you want to deviate from his professional opinion?

[Angelo222]

I think that comes under the heading of unintended consequences. I can't imagine it crossed Jeremy's mind that by murdering his family he'd be gifting the family inheritance to his relatives.

I bet he didn't...   

[Holly Goodhead]

Well he would do wouldn't be as he did it again after the murders when he sneaked into the farmhouse for his passport instead of asking Barbara for the keys. As on the previous occasions he left the window with the snib dropped to give the appearance that it was locked and secure.

But most trials would involve a visit to soc to allow judge and jury to see for themselves what the prosecution was alleging as to how JB supposedly exited leaving window(s) secured from within.

[Holly Goodhead]

But most trials would involve a visit to soc to allow judge and jury to see for themselves what the prosecution was alleging as to how JB supposedly exited leaving window(s) secured from within.

Police officers will have a lot of experience of criminals breaking-in and entering but how many criminals bother to secure the windows or doors after they've escaped with their ill-gotten gains?   All the more reason the judge and jury needed to attend soc to see how this worked in practice. 

It's highly questionable imo as to why judge and jury were not taken to WHF and why the defence didn't insist on this happening.

[Angelo222]

But most trials would involve a visit to soc to allow judge and jury to see for themselves what the prosecution was alleging as to how JB supposedly exited leaving window(s) secured from within.

That is not true. SOC provide photographs and video for the benefit of juries usually.

[APRIL]

Police officers will have a lot of experience of criminals breaking-in and entering but how many criminals bother to secure the windows or doors after they've escaped with their ill-gotten gains?   All the more reason the judge and jury needed to attend soc to see how this worked in practice. 

It's highly questionable imo as to why judge and jury were not taken to WHF and why the defence didn't insist on this happening.

If Jeremy never denied doing it, it was enough to prove it was possible. What would have been the point of dragging the jury there to debate it?

[Caroline]

But that's your interpretation not the pathologists.  The pathologist has always made clear he did not see anything at soc SC was incapable of and he was unable to conclude murder or suicide.

Dr Vanezis is a highly qualified expert of long experience with an unblemished career and I don't understand why you want to deviate from his professional opinion?

As opposed to your own interpretation? Vanezis didn't attend the CS while the bodies were in situ and as you know (but keep ignoring) he laid out his concerns after the trial and before you say he was 'hedging his bets' - take note of your last sentence and apply it to your own thinking.

[Holly Goodhead]

That is not true. SOC provide photographs and video for the benefit of juries usually.

It is true.  I will list high profile cases where juries have visited soc and/or been taken to other relevant sites:

- Tony Martin - Bleak Farm
- Barry George - Gowan Ave
- Wests - Cromwell St
- Noye - Hollywood Cottage
- Huntley - College Close
- Bridge - His home

It's a complete travesty the judge and jury were not taken to soc to see for themselves what the prosecution was alleging about window(s).

[Holly Goodhead]

If Jeremy never denied doing it, it was enough to prove it was possible. What would have been the point of dragging the jury there to debate it?

JB denied knowing of a way to exit WHF closing the window securely behind.

[Holly Goodhead]

As opposed to your own interpretation? Vanezis didn't attend the CS while the bodies were in situ and as you know (but keep ignoring) he laid out his concerns after the trial and before you say he was 'hedging his bets' - take note of your last sentence and apply it to your own thinking.

He did not observe anything during the pm's that SC was incapable of.

He has always maintained to this very day afaik he was unable to conclude murder or suicide.  If this wasn't the case why did the CCRC refer the case to CoA on the back of the blood/silencer?  Why does it state in the 2002 CoA doc:

46.From the pathological evidence alone, the pathologist could not say, one way or the other, whether Mrs Caffell had been murdered or had taken her own life.

The prosecutor had every opportunity at trial to tease anything out of Dr Vanezis that supported the prosecution case but nothing. If you disagree please identify what in his court testimony was detrimental to JB.

[APRIL]

JB denied knowing of a way to exit WHF closing the window securely behind.

Surely, if he knew how to enter through a securely closed window, he'd have discovered how to leave it the way he found it after he'd exited? However, if we allow for, perhaps he may not have bothered, can we be absolutely certain that every window was checked thoroughly? Finding 99% of those thoroughly checked to be secure, might not the last 1% have had just a cursory glance?

[Vertigo Swirl]

For those who believe JB responsible.

CAL describes im detail a (IMO) very plausible account of how Jeremy committed the killings.  She (unlike you) has had access to many of those who were actually present at the scene of the crime, and interviewed many of the key players.  She acknowledges that some of them have slight variances to her own theory but overall the account hangs together.  Which elements of it are inaccurate or implausible in your view and why?

[Caroline]

I think that comes under the heading of unintended consequences. I can't imagine it crossed Jeremy's mind that by murdering his family he'd be gifting the family inheritance to his relatives.

Doh! 

[Caroline]

Police officers will have a lot of experience of criminals breaking-in and entering but how many criminals bother to secure the windows or doors after they've escaped with their ill-gotten gains?   All the more reason the judge and jury needed to attend soc to see how this worked in practice. 

It's highly questionable imo as to why judge and jury were not taken to WHF and why the defence didn't insist on this happening.

Holly, usual criminals don't need to re-secure the window and the bathroom window was found to be closed but neot secure and with no reason for it having been opened in the first place, it must have been open all along - regardless of what Taff Jones claimed. Jeremy already admitted to being able to enter WHF and the hacksaw blade was found outside the bathroom window. A reconstruction of this wouldn't be possible now if they have changed the window, if not, then I would be happy to perform it for you.

[APRIL]

Holly, usual criminals don't need to re-secure the window and the bathroom window was found to be closed but neot secure and with no reason for it having been opened in the first place, it must have been open all along - regardless of what Taff Jones claimed. Jeremy already admitted to being able to enter WHF and the hacksaw blade was found outside the bathroom window. A reconstruction of this wouldn't be possible now if they have changed the window, if not, then I would be happy to perform it for you.

That, of course, is assuming permission would be granted, by the Trust and the Eatons, for a reconstruction to be done. I can't imagine any Court giving an order for such, apart from the small matter of financing a replacement window with wood of the same age and condition as the window that was, and then financing the replacement of the replacement.