Problems With The Silencer Evidence: Julie's Omission

[Erik Narramore]

We don't have a transcript of Julie's evidence, but I'm not aware of any reference to the silencer in accounts of what she said. 

It seems to me the silencer was considered inconclusive evidence by the police for quite some time.  Indeed, I may be mistaken here, but I believe that at the point Julie was holed-up at Essex Police HQ, the silencer wasn't considered crucial, and it certainly wasn't central to the investigation at this point. While, personally, I would downplay the significance of Julie's evidence in actually convicting Jeremy, I must acknowledge that her co-operation with the police was the catalyst for Jeremy's arrest and without her, the whole thing might not have gone ahead.

If that's right, then how interesting that mention of the silencer is absent from her evidence. If Jeremy did this, then he returned the silencer to the gun cupboard.  That's our starting point.

That being the case, wouldn't he have told Julie about the difficulties that Matthew Macdonald [actually Jeremy himself] had in killing Sheila and that he had to take the silencer off the gun?

Even if he didn't, wouldn't he have then expressed his fears to Julie about discovery of the silencer by the relatives?  He was telling her everything else.  Was he aware that the silencer had been found?

Maybe Jeremy decided to leave the detail out of his account to Julie of Macdonald's fictitious escapade, thinking it would definitely incriminating him?

But wait....

Isn't Jeremy supposed to have wiped the silencer clean?  And didn't he leave the silencer in the gun cupboard for that specific reason, so that its absence would not raise suspicion?  Wouldn't disclosing the existence of the silencer to Julie be yet another way of bringing discredit and ridicule on her claims to the police?  Investigators would find a forensically clean silencer (so Jeremy would have assumed), and Julie's claims would be further weakened.

Perhaps others here have thoughts on all this?  It may be that I am awry on some of the facts about who told what to who and what Julie knew and what was said.

[Erik Narramore]

Curious that Julie mentions the things that were known to the investigation at that stage and she could have heard second-hand, but not the one critical piece of evidence that only became significant later and that an innocent Jeremy would not have known about: the silencer.  How interesting.

[Leslie Aalders]

Curious that Julie mentions the things that were known to the investigation at that stage and she could have heard second-hand, but not the one critical piece of evidence that only became significant later and that an innocent Jeremy would not have known about: the silencer.  How interesting.

Yes that is indeed a very interesting observation Erik.very thought provoking.