Author Topic: Guardian: CAL and Judical Review  (Read 2814 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48611
Re: Guardian: CAL and Judical Review
« Reply #30 on: May 31, 2020, 03:08:PM »
Lookout it’s impossible to trust the CCRC. Every time it seems the truth is going to come out there is a cover up.
 I am still trying to get my head around the blood evidence she is talking about???????????
Does nobody take the blame for destroying evidence ? Slight accident in one of the biggest murder cases ever
I would love to see that women from the CCRC interviewed live by Neil who knows the case inside out.




Yes, so much for the CCRC staying neutral/ unbiased. They're as much use as a chocolate fireguard.
As without going through a case they tend to look at things from a guilt point of view instead of getting down to studying and reading between the lines to actually follow what could be, a miscarriage of justice. They rely too much on the CPS  which are another band of mis-informed Herbert's.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48611
Re: Guardian: CAL and Judical Review
« Reply #31 on: May 31, 2020, 03:20:PM »
I've never come across such a case with so many embellishments. This is what gets to me more than anything. I do straight talk without all the frills and I'd certainly expect the same from a group of police and their higher-ups.
The more the embellishments, the more the lies ! Mountains out of mole-hills.

Offline JackieD

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3818
Re: Guardian: CAL and Judical Review
« Reply #32 on: May 31, 2020, 05:33:PM »
Even if Jeremy was responsible and nobody alive can prove he did it or his sister did there’s not enough evidence to convict

That QC knows but will cover up along with the police

Karma will follow JM for ever
Julie Mugford the main prosecution witness was guilty of numerous crimes, 13 separate cheque frauds, robbery, and drug dealing and also making a deal with a national newspaper before trial that if she could convince a jury her ex boyfriend was guilty of five murders she would receive £25,000

Offline JackieD

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3818
Re: Guardian: CAL and Judical Review
« Reply #33 on: May 31, 2020, 05:35:PM »
Imagine if someone tapped that CCRC women’s phone
What a thing it would be to listen to her real thoughts on the case
Julie Mugford the main prosecution witness was guilty of numerous crimes, 13 separate cheque frauds, robbery, and drug dealing and also making a deal with a national newspaper before trial that if she could convince a jury her ex boyfriend was guilty of five murders she would receive £25,000