I have a more than adequate ability to debate you, its just that i seldom find you worth my time enganging you in debate, However since you have taken the time to try and
refute what i present, Its only fair i respond to each of your points accordingly and explain to you why you are wrong.
You have never proven me wrong about anything except in your dreams.
I never said anything was your fault, Infact having a sharp enough intuition to realise Julies claims are bogus from the beginning is a good thing, So if is your responcility thank you :)
[
You have failed to prove Julie's claims to be bogus. Julie's claims were regarding what she was told by Jeremy. The prosecution readily admitted that some of the stories Jeremy told to Julie were lies. You need to prove that Jeremy didn't tell Julie what she claims he said. You have no ability whatsoever to do that. Your claims you proved such are patently false.
First of all you need to grapple with the fact Jeremys alleged confession deviates from the facts of crime, Thus you must assume he gave her false information. Now considering all the variables Jeremy could have fictionalised, it is remarkable that two fundental aspects of the crime he falsely gave Julie was exactly the same as the errornous account police gave Ann Eaton and Robert Boutflour. The probablity of this being coincidental is extremly low.
I already explained why you are completely wrong and you failed to address my points you simply repeated the same nonsense.
The press reported Nevill was shot 7 times. You incorrectly insist that Jeremy had to know he shot Nevill 8 times not 7 and that this press account was wrong. It is possible Jeremy though he missed and even more likely that he didn't count how many shots he fired thus accepted whatever the press presented as the true number. You keep insisting he had to know how many shots he fired though it is more likely he didn't count the shots and keep track. You just ignore reality and make up that he had to know for sure how many shots he fired.
It is less likely he knew the real number he fired but even if he did know there is a reason to keep it a secret. Telling Julie a hitman did it was obviously some protection in case she ratted him out. Correcting the actual number of wounds would implicate him so just like lying about the hitman he could have chosen to lie about the number of shots. It is also possible that he did tell her 8 shots but she didn't remember how many he said and she simply memorized the number reported in the press. I alreayd mentioned all of these issues. You simply ignore them and say he had to know how many he fired, he would have told her how many her fired and she would have remembered it so using the 7 shot figure reported int he press proves he didn't tell her anything. It proves no such thing. Your bias makes you say it proves such but objectively it fails miserably.
Just like he made up MacDonald carrying out the murders he made up the claim that Sheila got on the bed and shot herself under his orders. No one knows why he told these lies. Maybe he did it so that if she ratted him out then the police would see the details were untrue and dismiss them. You ignore that and simply say she lied and made it all up including the hitman though there is zero reason for her to do so.
You also ignore that Ann Eaton misunderstood what police told her and erroneously though that saying she was on the far side of the bed meant she was on the bed when in fact police meant on the floor on the far side of the bed. Worse still you ignore that when Julie spoke to police the family and her were aware at that point that Sheila had been shot on the floor not the bed. If she was conspiring with the family to frame Jeremy she would not have said he told her Sheila was shot on the bed. You completely ignore such because you never looked at the issue objectively. you decided she lied and the family conspired with her despite no proof of such and simply make up nonsense to try to pretend this definitely happened despite no proof.
When Julie spoke to police she knew Sheila had been shot on the floor and that Jeremy had no alibi. If she were going to lie she would have said Jeremy confessed to killing her on the floor . If setting out to lie she would not have ran with the erroneous bed claim and would have fingered Jeremy directly not finger a hitman let alone to name a hitman who would be able to clear himself in short order.
You fail to deal with this at all. You also fail to deal with the most compelling part of her testimony.
Then we must assume that Jeremy took such carefull planning and precision for the crime only to then be foolish enough to tell the girl he was about to reject? and not only that he commits a perfect murder convincingly showing Shelia as the culprit only to then incriminate himself saying he hired a Hitman? Its sounds completely absured.
Telling Julie was stupid but not absurd. People confess to loved ones quite often but he did more than that. He told her in advance and even called her right after. Why would he call her period at 3AM let alone before police unless he had in fact involved her prior?
If he was the genius you claim then making up the hitman story was one of his bright ideas to deal with Julie. It served to enable him to ell her if she ratted him out then the hitman would come get her. Furthermore, if she did rat him out the police would find the story false and simply dismiss her claims as untrue which is PRECISELY what you are doing. Instead of being the brilliant man you think you are, you fell right into Jeremy's trap.
It was stupid to tell Julie about his plans but quite believable he would do such. It is not in the least bit absurd. lying to her afterwards to try to hedge his bets and protect himself is not absurd either but in fact if true would be intelligent. What is totally absurd though is the notion she would make up a tale implicating him and during the course of such say he provided to her details she and the family knew at that time were untrue- like that Sheila had been shot on the bed- and to make up a hitman instead of saying he confessed to committing the murders himself and most absurd of all to name the hitman so he could clear himself and prove the whole story false. That is beyond stupid and careless it is absurd. The level of detail Julie provided was substantial including mentioning how he took sleeping pills she had given to him and he considered trying to use them to get everyone to stay asleep while the house burned but found them unsuitable for the task. If she spent a great deal of time making up such details she would not ruin it by making up a hitman she would have said he confessed to carrying out the murders himself.
I am glad you brought this up! Because using a bit of common sense and forensic linguistics one can establish this to be a complete fabrication made up by Robert Boutflour and i shall explain
This statement first appears on the 20th of September 1985, now read carefully Roberts diary entires on the 11th of August 1985.
As you righly pointed out he is wondering or speculating about Jeremy planting the prints, now had Pam actually told him this he would not need to speculate he would know this with certainty, not only that he would also mention Pam telling him such a thing and he does not! Not until the 20th of September. Even more damning June is dead and Pam is too ill to testify and soon passes away. Was it so unfortunatle that the only two witnesses to this alleged important conversation happen to be dead? or was this a deception using false claims from the dead who cannot refute what one is saying? Make your own mind up
Pam spoke to police about her phonecall with June and Sheila, she was not too ill to speak to them and deny the account. You are too biased to approach this case rationally. Boutflour wasn't smart enough figure out that the reason why Jeremy wanted to teach her to load it was because it was an effort to plant prints. Like most he assumed such was so that people would believe she knew how to use it. I am the one who has pointed out that Jeremy was doing such to get her prints on it. It was far enough away for the murders that Boutflour failed to appreciate it. Boutflour was unsure whether Sheila's prints were found or not but he SPECULATED that if they were found it would be because Jeremy had planted them. He didn't believe that Sheila did anything and thus believed the only way for her prints to get on it would be from planting them.
His concerns are obvious ones you have not demonstrated at all that he got to Julie and got her to make up stories about Jeremy saying he had planted her prints on it but was unsure whether they had been wiped off. Your thought process is entirely guided by bias. Indeed if you were thinking clearly then you would not suggest that family members who KNEW in mid August that Sheila had been shot on the floor pressed Julie to make up in September that Jeremy told her she was shot on the bed! You don't think through your claims much.
Strangely enough there are reports of prints found on the bullets and the magazine, see below
What happened to these reports? god only knows
That doesn't show the section where they detail the results. That lists what they tested. If you bothered to show the result portion you would find out they got 5 results on the rifle but ZILCH on the moderator and magazine. You fall for every lie Mike and the CT come out with. how sad you are. You fall for lies form them then ridiculously claim the police lied and I fell for it. You operate totally backwards...
but during Jeremy's 2002 appeal hearings his Queens Council Michael Turner made a very good point
"Robert Boutflour claimed Jeremy had been trying to get Sheila to load the rifle in front of June and Pamela, but Pamela made no such reference of the incident in her statements. Jeremy denied ever doing this. It is now known fingerprints were found on the bullet cases of the cartridges, but this was not disclosed. Whose fingerprints were these? One can only postulate that the police told Robert Boutflour the fingerprints were Sheila’s, and in an attempt to explain it, he made a statement of how Sheila’s fingerprints came to be on the bullet cases"
Why on Earth are you still falling for this deplorable gambit made up by Essex Police?
They asked Pam to give a statement about the phone call prior to the murders. That was all they asked of her. That doesn't mean that Boutflour lied, indeed it would make no sense to lie since Pam could have refuted his claims. The claim that there were prints found on the casings is a lie. That is why in discussing the prints the COA decision fails to mention any prints found on casings. The one falling for lies is you not me.
Contrary to what was first told Julie did not come forward to the police on the 7th. As the Bank manager can prove he had her accounted for with her friend
and a police officer in the bank on the 4th several days before she "came forward".
The police orchestrated the situation with the bank as part of the deal with Julie Mugford for her evidence against Jeremy and in order to sanitise her character before the jury.
They then covered up what had happened hiding it from the defence and the court.
I have established the evidence, Just because it falls flat in YOUR OPINION that does not reflect the reality of the situation whether you know it or not.
I can refute what you wrote as you have just discovered for yourself. My fool abouts with calling you names or posting a guy laughting is fully justified due to the way you talk to others, also its partly
because I seldom bother to give you the time of day. If the day comes were you start opening your mind somewhat and stop being a brick wall to talk to i may decide to engage with more lenghly discussions with you.
Dovey's October 14, 1985 statement indicates that they went to see him On October 4, 1985. That is nearly a month after Julie met with police on September 7. His 2002 statement was rejected by the COA as containing faulty recollections because so many years had passed.
Police only knew about the fraud because Julie admitted to it during the course of ratting Jeremy out and had she not done so neither the police nor anyone else would have been able to raise the issue.
All you have done is expose your own biases you have failed miserably at establishing Julie lied about anything let alone establishing that police and the family conspired with Julie to have her lie.
You have fallen for Jeremy's lies and those of his supporters, you are the one who looks gullible not me.
