How many more time do I have to say NO I don't believe the 'evidence' as I don't believe any RELIABLE 'evidence' exists showing beyond reasonable doubt that JB is guilty.
It seem obvious to me that there was something seriously wrong at WHF when JB called JM circa 6am. At this time EP/JB had been outside for some 2 hours. At one point Taff Jones attempted to make contact with a loud hailer. Given the background ie the said phone call from NB to JB re SC with gun and going crazy it should be obvious to all that something was amiss.
There is more than enough evidence that establishes his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You simply choose to irrationally ignore it. That doesn't make the evidence go away it just makes your position unsupportable.
You start out by ignoring that the killer removed the bedroom phone before anyone went to bed. The killer actually planned the murders in advance. You pointed to testimony that phones were constantly breaking and that when the usual kitchen phone broke that the master bedroom phone was moved to the kitchen. The kitchen phone didn't break though it worked perfectly. The killer unplugged the kitchen phone, hid it and moved the bedroom phone to the kitchen. What valid reaosn is there for hiding the kitchen phone and replacing it with the bedroom phone? None. That is why when challenged you could not come up with a rational reason. Afte ryour position was proved wrong and untenable you simply stopped addressing this point and say you refuse to believ the killer moved the phone. All that amounts to is you hiding your head in the sand because you don't like that this suggests the killer planned in advance because that implicates Jeremy ist doesn't support the claim that Sheila suddenly went crazy at 3AM in the morning.
Also, nice of you to completely ignore that NB can't have made the phone call that JB claims he received. What part of the doctor's assessment that NB could not speak coherently after having his lip shot off, jaw shattered and voicebox severed confuses you? Since no blood was on the phone NB obviously never even reached it. Had he been able to talk by some miracle he would have requested medical help because he and his wife had been shot before he even reached the kitchen let alone could have reached the phone.
Jeremy didn't even carefully think about what to say to police about this supposed call. He claimed the phone simply went dead because someone hung up the phone at WHF, presumably the killer hung it up. He claimed he then immediately called police. In fact, the line was not hung up at WHF it was left off the hook. This is consistent with him dialing his own number, leaving it off the hook to keep ringing and answering when he got home. It is not consistent with a killer taking the phone from the NB hands and hanging it up. After the discrepancy was brought to his attention he changed his tune and suggested he heard scuffling and might have even heard gunshots so then hung up and called police. But it would have taken 1-2 minutes for the line to clear. So then he claimed it took him a while to find the phone number. Yet he didn't know it would be faster to just dial 999 then to spend a great deal of time supposedly looking up police station numbers... Yep his claims make a lot of sense, NOT!
Worse yet he lied he called Julie first and took quite some time after that to finally call police.
Why did he call Julie period at 3AM let alone do so before calling police? He woke up her whole flat. He told her he had not been to sleep and that his plan (he told her about around 10PM he was going to kill his family) was going well. His claim he called Julie because he was worried makes no sense. She couldn't do a thing for him. If he was worried he would have called 999 and/or ran over to investigate. This phone call is consistent with Julie's version not his. Why would he lie and say the line clicked and he heard silence if in fact he could hear them scuffling and he is the one who ended the call himself by hanging up so he could call police? That certianly doesn't accord with him then calling Julie and waiting so long to call police. So he changed it again back to claiming the line went dead though it had not been hung up.
Taff Jones didn't arrive at the scene until after the bodies had been found you claim he used a bull horn to try to speak to them before Jeremy called Julie at 6Am is false. Statements of those police who were on the scene state they were patched into the telephone and spoke through the line hoping that someone was in the kitchen listening but they never got any response. The bull horn claim is not supported by any evidence but rather one of Tesko's many bogus claims.
Police had indeed waited outside for 2 hours before Jeremy called Julie. The only odd thing noticed was that the phone was off the hook. Other than this they could all have been asleep for all the cops knew. There wa sno movement inside at all. The only reason police went there is because Jeremy's claim that he received a call from Neville, a call that he could not have made. But for that claim no one would know the phone was off the hook and everyone would think the household was merely sleeping.
They arrived because of Jeremy and they were scared to go inside because of Jeremy. Jeremy intentionally scared them by describing all the firearms in the house and lying about Sheila being proficient with all of them though he admitted later that she hadn't handled let alone fired any of them to his knowledge. Prior to that he lied about her going shooting with Anthony and Nevill but after Anthony denied it he rescinded the claim. Jeremy never asked them togo inside nor made any effort himself. He knew where a spare key was hidden around the barn or near the barn (the precise locaion I don't recall) but never bothered to tell police so they could use it to sneak in. Instead he made them break the door in.
At 6Am he calls Julie to tell her not to go to work so she can answer police questions about his family. This not only discloses he knows they are dead, it shows he needs her help with his charade. Why would police need to speak to her? He wanted her to corroborate things he told her including his phone call to her. He called her to try to make it seem like there was a genuine problem. He didn't think that a normal person would not have called their girlfriend at that hour just to say they received a distressing phone call and something may or may not be wrong.
Nor did he think through things carefully when he staged the scene and left a box containing 30 rounds instead of 25 or less. That means the killer had to get additional ammo from the closet. Additional ammo from a stash found right next to the suppressor, in the same box in fact.
The best case scenario was the occupants injured and unable to make contact or held hostage. The worst case scenario was sadly the outcome. EP suggested to JB that he might like to call someone, for emotional support I guess as they no doubt figured the likely scenario. He called his then girlfriend.
EP didn't suggest JB call someone, according to testimony and the appeal court decision he asked police to allow him to call Julie. Except he didn't call her for emotional support. He told her he had only 10p so could not talk he just implied they were dead and not to go to work because eventually police would pick her up and question her. He didn't want her to go to work so she could be questioned by police and support his story that way he would not be suspected. It paid off because Taff Jones, believed the frame and ended up not allowing his officers to collect evidence that should have been.
It was for the jury to decide whether or not the silencer was a reliable exhibit insofar as being used as the basis of convicting a man of 5 murders. As contamination was not presented to them as a realistic possibility they were unable to reject the silencer on this basis. The judge misled them into thinking SC's blood was in the silencer as a result of back spatter. Hence they asked about a "perfect match" something you and I definitely aint 
The judge didn't mislead them in the least. We (the US and UK) have an adversarial legal system. It was the duty of defense to refute the testomony of the defense but they couldn't. Teh court summarized the evidence presented merely, no one was mislead.
You have not presented any evidence that contamination was a realistic possibility. In fact you have demonstrated you have no desire to discuss the possibility in realistic fashion. You were challenged by me at least 10 times to explain how the paint coudl have been accidentally deposited on the suppressor. Likewise I challenged you to explain how wet blood could have accidentally been transferred to the 8 baffles where the defense expert found type A blood. You could not provide any manner in which there was an accidental tranfer of either let alone both because there is no realistic or even remote possibility of such. The only way for this evidence to be deposited there is intentionally and even that would not exacly be easy.
The family needed to:
1) figure out what blood Sheila (a non-blood relative) had
2) find a source of such blood that didn't have any genetic markers that would give away that it wasn't her blood
3) find a way to transfer wet blood onto the first 8 baffles (I already explained in detail how this could not be accomplished by simply dripping blood inside)
4) had to scratch the mantle with it
5) had to hope police would figure out it was the mantle that had been scratched by it
6) had to hope police would be able to prove conclusively the paint on the suppressor was the same paint on the mantle
This is a tall order. You basically insist that it is a real possibility this happened. Yet what evidence do you have to establish it was a real possiiblity this all happened? None! Your sole evidence is that they found the suppressor, had it in their possession before police and thus had the opportunity to doctor it if they so chose. Mere possession for a short amount of time doesn't establish a possibility it was doctored sufficient to create reasonable doubt over the evidence.
That is why none of the appeals filed on such ground got any traction.
At the end of the day you simply assert that because the suppressor was in the hands of relatives before police this means they had the opportunity to plant evidence and that the evidence thus should not be used.
I repeatedly challenged you to explain your theory of who planted the evidence, where the blood came from and how it was planted. You were unable to respond. You don't even have a theory of who did it and how let alone evidence that anyone planted evidence in/on the suppressor
You have not established a real possibility of evidence being planted. You just irrationally want to believe it was planted because you want Jeremy to be innocent.
You irrationally ignore the fact that you were not at WHF and have no real idea what did or didn't take place and the sequence of events. No more than I know what took place. Of course NB would not have called JB having suffered the 4 or 5 shots in the bedroom/on the stairs (it's almost certain he would not be able to engage in purposeful conversation) but you cannot disprove that NB called JB before any shots were fired or that he may have even called from the phone in the office. You're happy with your narrative. Fine. The narrative I subscribe to is very different and if anything your wearisome verbose just reinforces my position in my own mind.
That's a good one. I irrationally believe I was present during the murders. What a laugh. I know I wasn't there on the night of the murders. However unlike you I follow the evidence.
The sequence of events I have described is the sequence that is supported by the physical evidence.
You INGORE the evidence because it establishes Jermey's guilt. So instead you make up a sequence that doesn't have any evidentiary foundation at all and in fact makes no sense..
Your sequence features Nevill running to the kitchen twice. Since you told me it a number of times I have it memorized. Despite being docile as late at 10PM and dressing for bed and going to her room for bed, Sheila becomes agitated while everyoen else is in bed. Around 3AM Sheila is running around with a gun screaming but not yet firing it. Nevill is much larger than her but instead of trying to disarm her he decides to call Jeremy to ask him to come disarm her. (It would presumably take time for Jeremy to dress so it would take at least 5 minutes if not longer for him to arrive. Why would he no try to disarm her himself instead of waiting that long for someone to do it?) So he goes to the kitchen to make a call (you completely ignore the issue of the phone being removed from the bedroom before they went to bed, which indicates planning in advance.) As this is going on June simply stays in her bedroom. She doesn't check on the boys or go downstairs to support her husband. Sheila follows Nevill into the kitchen and knocks the phone out of his hand and orders him to march upstairs to the master bedroom. (Somehow he had enough time to dial and talk to Jeremy before she could knock it out of his hand.) Instead of trying to disarm her he marches back into the master bedroom. (why woudl she march him back to his bedroom to shoot him there instead of just shooting him if she was in a frenzy?) She then begins shooting June and Nevill. Nevill is shot in the lip, and jaw/voicebox. He is not disabled but still doesn't try to disarm her. Instead he races past her and is shot in the right shoulder and elbow as he is running. He would have been close enough to try to wrestle the gun away in order to get past her but he doesn't try instead he just pushes her aside and runs downstairs. Sheila follows him. Despite the fact it would take a long time for the injuries he received to cause him to pass out and die you say he passed out and the chair he fell on turned over and he rested upon it. No struggle took place he simply passed out and messed up the kitchen all on his own as he fell. Sheila then took the rifle and beat him so hard the rifle stock broke but because he was limp she suffered no injuries as she was bludgeoning him. He didn't raise his arm to defend himself like prosecution witnesses claim. She intentionally beat his arm while he was unconscious and then beat his head. After she got her rage out beating his limp body she shot him in the head multiple times killing him. She then shot the boys and shot her mother some additional times to make sure she was dead having to reload in between.
You never account for when or why she went into the gun closet to get the additional rounds of ammunition that she would have to have gotten in order for 30 rounds to remain in the box in the kitchen.
What evidence supports your acoc..t? None. You made it up because that is the only way that Nevill could have made a call to Jeremy. Yet it makes no sense for him to call Jeremy to come disarm her instead of doing it himself since time was of the essence and he was as physically capable as Jeremy. Nor does it make sense to keep running up and down the stairs. It certainly makes no sense to run by her instead of wrestling the gun away as she was shooting at him. To get by her he would have to be so close that she could not aim the gun at him. Why would she march him upstairs anyway instead of just shooting him in the kithen if she were in such a frenzy? Your account makes no sense. It is ridiculous. I would be embarrassed to attach my name to such rubbish you must have no shame.
The evidence and logic clearly establish that the killer entered the master bedroom and walked around part of the bed and then began firing. Presumably to kill Nevill first, he was shot multiple times but not killed. By not blocking the door and instead being inside this is what enabled Nevill to escape and June to also run towards the door only her wounds immoblized her so she never made it out. Nevill ran to the kitchen and in the kitchen he struggled with his killer over the gun. He was already shot and going to be shot more unless he wrestled the gun away to he tried to take it from his killer. His killer broke his nose and gave him 2 black eyes. His killer beat him with the rifle as he tried to block receiving defensive wounds in the process. He was eventually beaten unconsclous and the rifle broke he was hit so hard. The gun broke the ceiling light which is indicative the suppressor was attached because the gun would not have struck it otherwise. Similarly it scraped against the mantle during this struggle which you deny took place despite the evidence proving it did and your account of Sheila beating a lifeless body making no sense at all. Once he was unconscious the killer was able to fatally shoot him in the head as he was slumped over the chair that had been overturned during the struggle.
Ignoring the evidence to put forth an account that makes no sense and is ridiculous just makes you look silly. It doesn't help convince anyone else of his innocence and certainly doesn't prove his innocence or mean he is innocent. It just means you refuse to admit his guilt though the evidence proves he is guilty.
I am not bothered in the slightest that I am "all alone here". Firstly The UK Justice Forum is not representative of the global democratic society ie every citizen who should be interested in justice. Secondly it shows that I am capable of independent thought and don't fall for the official line.
This forum holds the mainstram view of this case. Justice was served. All you are demonstrating is your willingness to ignore evidence and facts and instead make up nonsense to try to justify your claim he is innocent. Your version of events is irrational and not supported by any evidence.
Unknown people framed him in some unspecified manner according to you. You have no evidence at all to support such claim which is why it is unknown people in an unspecified fashion. Julie Mugford according to you is lying though she gave a very detailed account that would have taken a long time to make up and is not contradicted by any objective evidence but rather comports with the evidence. What proof do you have she is lying? According to you she must be because you want Jeremy to be innocent. That is why the blood evidence and mantle paint must have been planted too, because you want him to be innocent.
The only thought you are engaging in is ways to pretend he is inocent. You have not used any logical thought process to evaluate this case. I think I have proved that quite clearly.
Poll