I watched the above last night, and it didn't make me in any way certain that JB is guilty.
I don't know this case well, by any stretch of the imagination, but am I supposed to think the "new evidence" (phone logs, police logs, etc) are all fake? As far as I could see, IF they are genuine, they really do cast doubt on JB's guilt. I'm trying to be open minded, but Nevill could have phoned the police, and there could have been a conversation with somebody inside the farm , according to these documents, IF they are genuine. The argument I often hear, that "inside the farm" doesn't actually mean "inside the farmhouse" , but "inside the grounds", could be taken either way, IMO. All depends how one wants to read it.
Any idea why this stuff has come to light so long after the event? How did it come to be released? Or, has someone really just invented it?
I think the paperwork is genuine but personally I see it as evidence of sloppiness and poor communication as opposed to anything else.
The paperwork purporting to be a tel call from NB is almost certainly info regurgitated internally from one source ie JB.
There's not a shred of evidence that anyone within the farmhouse communicated with anyone outside.
There's also a police log which states one male and one female in the kitchen. This was based on PC Collins putting his head above above the parapet to take a look at the kitchen. It seems he mistook NB for SC. When the firearms team entered shortly afterwards PC Collins realised NB was in fact male and radioed through to communicate this fact. Hence a log details one female and one male in kitchen.
Unlike today officers were not wearing body cams but relying on walkie talkies where they commincated events to a note taker elsewhere.
All sorts of lurid theories exist that SC shot herself once in the kitchen and then again upstairs which Dr Vanezis and the defence pathologist ruled out.
Mike Tesko on the Blue forum has even suggested the police shot SC which again doesn't fit with any of the ballistics and pathological evidence.
mrswah you asked why I don't rate SL's book and its in part because he believed at the time of writing that these aspects support JB when there's no basis for them.
They're worth mentioning because they show by today's standards it was very poor in terms of paperwork and communication but that's it. To suggest they're evidence of anything else muddies the water and makes JB/his case look very weak after 35 years.
I believe all the above points have been fully investigated by CCRC and rejected.
It's similar to what the police considered to be movement at the window subsequently written off as a 'trick of the light'. No one will ever know whether it was a trick of the light or some other thing or person. The time for beating the drum about this was at trial but I don't believe the defence did. But now JB claims this is his alibi that the movement was SC. This is the reason I believe BC turned against him. Its not an alibi because it was never proved what or who it was. Never mind a trick of the light it puts JB and his case in a poor light if that's the best you can come up with after 35 years.
IMO JB has a poor understanding of his case and surrounds himself with people who tell him what he wants to hear.
