Why Jeremy Would Delay

Started by Erik Narramore, January 31, 2022, 04:41:56 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Erik Narramore

A guilty Jeremy would want to make a show of being seen to arrive after the police.  This was in the days before itemised phone billing and so he didn't have a proper alibi.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

Another reason for bringing in the local police has occurred to me.  It's not difficult to believe that Jeremy had a manipulative turn of mind and maybe he thought that he could exercise more influence and control in some way over a local police officer and make them see the incident how he wanted them to. Perhaps he assumed that if he dialled 999, the police response would have been more heavy-handed and firearms officers would have been deployed immediately and the matter would quickly spin out of control, with officers who would have less time for him.  He wanted to be the 'architect of perceptions' in the situation.

That's the best I can come up with and I still think it's weak.  Even if he dialled 999, chances are that the response would still have been led by Christopher Bews and the incident would have unfolded in much the same way.   Ultimately whether you dial 999 or the local police, the response is going to be the same.  Jeremy must surely have realised this, and he had no way of knowing how the responding officers would deal with the situation, yet he tried to press Christopher Bews to go in the house, while at the same time implying that there was danger.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams