Author Topic: carol ann lees conclusions.  (Read 814 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4590
Re: carol ann lees conclusions.
« Reply #30 on: August 09, 2017, 06:11:PM »
Yes he is and I don't want to personalize it just because Ngb1066 is on the forum. There are other barristers who have also worked pro bono to wangle Jeremy off on a technicality, whatever private opinions they may hold. I suppose it goes with the territory of that particular profession.

I certainly would not want Jeremy to succeed on an appeal on some technicality, and it is highly unlikely that could ever happen now.  I would only like Jeremy to be acquitted upon the basis of demonstrating to the Court of Appeal that his convictions are unsafe, in that there must at least be a genuine doubt as to his guilt.  This can only be done in my view by undermining key aspects of the evidence at trial which were crucial to the decision of the majority of the jury.  The two key aspects are in my view Julie's evidence, which was extremely damaging to the defence, and the evidence relating to the silencer (although not conclusive, if as the prosecution alleged the silencer was fitted during the violent episode and then removed, this could be taken as powerful evidence of guilt).  If those two aspects of the case are undermined, as I believe they both could be, the prosecution case is left in tatters and the appeals should succeed.  That would be a just verdict, not simply a win on a technicality.  There are of course other appeal points, such as that touched upon by Roch, which also add weight to the defence case.


Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 34959
Re: carol ann lees conclusions.
« Reply #31 on: August 09, 2017, 06:22:PM »
When explained like that,we all know where we stand.
I know Jeremy himself wouldn't/doesn't want to " win " on a technicality.He's quite adamant about that.

Offline Hartley.

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2415
Re: carol ann lees conclusions.
« Reply #32 on: August 09, 2017, 07:02:PM »
I certainly would not want Jeremy to succeed on an appeal on some technicality, and it is highly unlikely that could ever happen now.  I would only like Jeremy to be acquitted upon the basis of demonstrating to the Court of Appeal that his convictions are unsafe, in that there must at least be a genuine doubt as to his guilt.  This can only be done in my view by undermining key aspects of the evidence at trial which were crucial to the decision of the majority of the jury.  The two key aspects are in my view Julie's evidence, which was extremely damaging to the defence, and the evidence relating to the silencer (although not conclusive, if as the prosecution alleged the silencer was fitted during the violent episode and then removed, this could be taken as powerful evidence of guilt).  If those two aspects of the case are undermined, as I believe they both could be, the prosecution case is left in tatters and the appeals should succeed.  That would be a just verdict, not simply a win on a technicality.  There are of course other appeal points, such as that touched upon by Roch, which also add weight to the defence case.

Privately, without the lawyer hat on, you must have an opinion as to whether you believe JB actually committed the murders or not.
I'm not intending to push for you to reveal such views and certainly understand the desire, or perhaps even need, to be extremely reticent on the matter.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4627
Re: carol ann lees conclusions.
« Reply #33 on: August 09, 2017, 07:07:PM »
I certainly would not want Jeremy to succeed on an appeal on some technicality, and it is highly unlikely that could ever happen now.  I would only like Jeremy to be acquitted upon the basis of demonstrating to the Court of Appeal that his convictions are unsafe, in that there must at least be a genuine doubt as to his guilt.  This can only be done in my view by undermining key aspects of the evidence at trial which were crucial to the decision of the majority of the jury.  The two key aspects are in my view Julie's evidence, which was extremely damaging to the defence, and the evidence relating to the silencer (although not conclusive, if as the prosecution alleged the silencer was fitted during the violent episode and then removed, this could be taken as powerful evidence of guilt).  If those two aspects of the case are undermined, as I believe they both could be, the prosecution case is left in tatters and the appeals should succeed.  That would be a just verdict, not simply a win on a technicality.  There are of course other appeal points, such as that touched upon by Roch, which also add weight to the defence case.

MTQC expected JBs appeal in 2002 to succeed on the basis of the windows being secure and undamaged on the night/morning of the murders. That's also a compelling argument.
"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Offline Hartley.

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2415
Re: carol ann lees conclusions.
« Reply #34 on: August 09, 2017, 07:40:PM »
MTQC expected JBs appeal in 2002 to succeed on the basis of the windows being secure and undamaged on the night/morning of the murders. That's also a compelling argument.

Ground 3 of the 2002 appeal was dealt with by JB's admission that he could access the house via windows - "secure or insecure  it doesn't matter".

Given the courts findings, the Ground was found not to be compelling at all.

Offline David1819

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4627
Re: carol ann lees conclusions.
« Reply #35 on: August 09, 2017, 07:59:PM »
Ground 3 of the 2002 appeal was dealt with by JB's admission that he could access the house via windows - "secure or insecure  it doesn't matter".

Given the courts findings, the Ground was found not to be compelling at all.

Yes. I am aware of the sleazy technicality used by the COA to sidestep the issue.

The fact of the matter is JB's admission does not mention accessing the house via windows without leaving a trace of forced entry.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2017, 08:00:PM by David1819 »
"Truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is."

"The idea that he could invent a tale of a killing spree by a mentally disturbed woman to be lent credibility by further violent episodes over the following decades is hard to credit."

Online lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 34959
Re: carol ann lees conclusions.
« Reply #36 on: August 09, 2017, 08:00:PM »
MTQC expected JBs appeal in 2002 to succeed on the basis of the windows being secure and undamaged on the night/morning of the murders. That's also a compelling argument.






Bambertweets/CT have a more recent video about the windows--it's worth watching.

Offline Hartley.

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2415
Re: carol ann lees conclusions.
« Reply #37 on: August 09, 2017, 08:50:PM »
Yes. I am aware of the sleazy technicality used by the COA to sidestep the issue.

The fact of the matter is JB's admission does not mention accessing the house via windows without leaving a trace of forced entry.

I think the reasons for dismissing this ground of appeal are quite robust. Your commentary is at best unreasonable.

Offline Jan

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9387
Re: carol ann lees conclusions.
« Reply #38 on: August 09, 2017, 10:13:PM »
I think the reasons for dismissing this ground of appeal are quite robust. Your commentary is at best unreasonable.

I have to disagree with you if you are talking about the window .


Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12348
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: carol ann lees conclusions.
« Reply #39 on: August 09, 2017, 10:20:PM »
Privately, without the lawyer hat on, you must have an opinion as to whether you believe JB actually committed the murders or not.
I'm not intending to push for you to reveal such views and certainly understand the desire, or perhaps even need, to be extremely reticent on the matter.

do you think niel would go to all the trouble hes gone to if he thought jeremy was guilty.

hes geting paid for any of it.

Offline Jan

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9387
Re: carol ann lees conclusions.
« Reply #40 on: August 09, 2017, 10:28:PM »
If you are talking about technicalities the consider this , a jury has to convict beyond reasonable doubt . So in other words there does not have to be proof .

So let's take the silencer evidence . I personally don't think the judge understood the blood evidence and subsequently even experts have argued about it . So how were the jury supposed to understand.

There have been documents on here that have implicated there was animal blood on the silencer and you have to ask the question how did that get there ? 

Would the murderer have planned everything so meticulously and then left a "Blob" of blood on the silencer ( which is wasn't by the way it was more of a moderator. )

Then today I have got to be honest , the fact that is was removed from the crime scene , handled by persons who would later benefit from the conviction , then collected without gloves and in a cardboard tube is appalling and yet the investigation really depended on this piece of evidence. If the silencer had been disallowed as evidence then there would have been less query about whether Sheila could commit suicide.

So then they would have been left with Julie's evidence which allegedly in court was almost incomprehensible.

So if that ONE piece of evidence had not been shown to the jury then Jeremy I don't think would have been convicted .

Does it mean he was guilty or innocent ? I don't know
Does the fact the silencer was allowed prove he was guilty or innocent , not really , it just pushed it over thee reasonable doubt line .

The rest was circumstantial by persons that may or may not have been influenced by criminal charges being dropped .

Now personally I don't think Jeremy or any of his supporters really want him released on a technicality , they want proof that he was innocent . But the way I look at it is that there was no PROOF he was guilty in the first place .

But "technicalities " in law are not something to be dismissed without consideration either .

Offline Jan

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9387
Re: carol ann lees conclusions.
« Reply #41 on: August 09, 2017, 10:35:PM »
Yes. I am aware of the sleazy technicality used by the COA to sidestep the issue.

The fact of the matter is JB's admission does not mention accessing the house via windows without leaving a trace of forced entry.

It's quite amazing that in a case a number of circumstantial events can add up to guilt , and yet when there is an appeal a group of arguments against points of conviction can not be added together to be used as balancing arguments.

For example dovey evidence , even if we can be persuaded that the police were with Julie at the bank , it would not change the result

And we will ignore the fact that Jeremy never said the window can be LOCKED from the outside and there was no evidence that he did use that window that night , we will just say he could of . ???

If I had been on the defence team I would have taken them to test that window . Because I don't even believe it could LOCK from the outside .





Offline Hartley.

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2415
Re: carol ann lees conclusions.
« Reply #42 on: August 09, 2017, 10:36:PM »
do you think niel would go to all the trouble hes gone to if he thought jeremy was guilty.

hes geting paid for any of it.

I think he is solely concerned with the legal aspects.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 12348
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: carol ann lees conclusions.
« Reply #43 on: August 09, 2017, 10:41:PM »
It's quite amazing that in a case a number of circumstantial events can add up to guilt , and yet when there is an appeal a group of arguments against points of conviction can not be added together to be used as balancing arguments.

For example dovey evidence , even if we can be persuaded that the police were with Julie at the bank , it would not change the result

And we will ignore the fact that Jeremy never said the window can be LOCKED from the outside and there was no evidence that he did use that window that night , we will just say he could of . ???

If I had been on the defence team I would have taken them to test that window . Because I don't even believe it could LOCK from the outside .

they make the rules up as they go along i think.

Offline Hartley.

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2415
Re: carol ann lees conclusions.
« Reply #44 on: August 09, 2017, 10:41:PM »
I have to disagree with you if you are talking about the window .

You are not disagreeing with me, but you may be disagreeing with the court of appeals findings.
If so, and without valid rebuttal I can't comment for or against your personal view.