Author Topic: Why Did JB Have His Category Status Downgraded So Quickly By Prison Authoritys  (Read 2025 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline justice

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2646
Your trying to cause trouble as per usual every single day
Check with Ngb
But you won't will you because you will look a total idiot again
Try to be civilised instead of calling someone a idiot.
Envy kills,” the Pope said. “It does not tolerate others having something that I do not have. And it always suffers, because the heart of an envious or jealous person suffers. It is a suffering heart!” It is a suffering that desires “the death of others

Offline Jane J

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23970
Your trying to cause trouble as per usual every single day
Check with Ngb
But you won't will you because you will look a total idiot again

 Well, well, well. So you've never told a lie on this forum? Is that right, Jackie?

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
Have to agree A A, I cannot defend Julie in what actions she took, I think she was very vulnerable and an easy target because of her past, I thought the defence did a poor job of such a witness.  Have you seen Jeremy's trial statements and cross examining AA, they are not up here, any reason why not?

This highly intelligent girl studying for a degree who trawled Oxford Stree with a stolen cheque book

Vulnerable are you joking
That's why she hitched her clothes up to show. No knickers for 25,000

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
Go on then, give us a list of everyone who was available, convenient, offered, and was deemed suitable to do the identification.
We have been down this road
There were numerous people
The 'murderers' assistant got her kicks out of seeing children with bullet holes in them

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
Well, well, well. So you've never told a lie on this forum? Is that right, Jackie?
Have u checked yet troublemaker and then I want an apology

Offline Hartley.

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2415
This highly intelligent girl studying for a degree who trawled Oxford Stree with a stolen cheque book

Vulnerable are you joking
That's why she hitched her clothes up to show. No knickers for 25,000

She certainly is worthy of a certain amount of criticism.

Surely this pales in significance when compared to Jeremy, who murdered five people?

Offline justice

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2646
This highly intelligent girl studying for a degree who trawled Oxford Stree with a stolen cheque book

Vulnerable are you joking
That's why she hitched her clothes up to show. No knickers for 25,000
Any photo's of her Sharon Stone performance?  Or is it just your usual gossip.
Envy kills,” the Pope said. “It does not tolerate others having something that I do not have. And it always suffers, because the heart of an envious or jealous person suffers. It is a suffering heart!” It is a suffering that desires “the death of others

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
Try to be civilised instead of calling someone a idiot.

She knows full well about my twitter account and is once again trying to disrupt the forum

Offline Jane J

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23970
Have u checked yet troublemaker and then I want an apology

And I'm up to all the tricks you use to deflect from answering the allegation.

Online ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4590
This is what I wrote on 2nd May 2013, which you have described as "extremely offensive":

I'm afraid you've got carried away with your statement whoever you are; whilst making sense in the initial stages you drifted off into flights of fancy which make a mockery of your whole argument. It starts to go awry from the second paragraph after you assert that to be guilty Julie must "provide some positive assistance" when there was absolutely none to the Jeremy supporters' chagrin: she neither provided Jeremy with an alibi nor the infamous sleeping tablets which were for Julie's sole use during one of the most stressful periods of a teacher's career, namely teaching practice, and it is dishonourable of you if you hold a position in law to suggest otherwise. It was Jeremy who imported cannabis stuffed in toothpaste tubes from Amsterdam and not Julie, and though she sold the drug on university premises at Jeremy's behest this does not necessarily bar any teacher from a career; indeed there are male teachers who have abused female pupils who have appealed to the Secretary of State and have been further allowed to teach in an all-male environment, which I know anecdotally from colleagues.

On the day of the murders Julie was not warned in advance as you suggest; after a hard day's work she attempted to decipher yet another of Jeremy's riddles with the "tonight's the night..it's now or never" clue which was symptomatic of Jeremy's infantile manner of speaking for the two years she had known him with his "let's get the ball rolling" idiom used ad nauseum, his "bye honey, love you lots",his sending her roses and booking the bridal suite at a top London hotel interspersed with remarks of the crudest calibre, reminding us of Gresham's head Mr. Bruce Logie Lockhart's aphorism that Jeremy was "a relentless tease". If the head of a public school came to that conclusion then don't expect the product of an all girl's grammar school to be any the wiser in interpreting Jeremy's remarks.

Post-murders we have Julie realizing that Jeremy did have a hand in the murders, whether he was the sole perpetrator or proxy driver, which as Mike suggested the" trick of the light story" gave rise to, but it was Julie who carried the guilt for both of them as the murders for Jeremy were not much different than swatting flies. You misrepresent the chronology because Julie told several people including the Bishop's and Michael Deckers the manager of the Frog and Beans before she voluntarily agreed to visit the Police. Had she not done so of course the trial would have proceeded without Julie on the basis of the silencer and blood evidence pushed by the relatives and going on the summing up of the judge Julie's evidence anyway would not have been paramount.


I provided a link to the old thread in case some members would like to have a look.  You have selected one of your posts directed at me, but not others to me and to others which were far more offensive.  You were strongly challenged not only by me but by other members who were frankly shocked at your obnoxious behaviour.  I do not propose to rerun the arguments here, there is no point.  If anyone is interested they can read the linked thread and form their own view.  There are also contained in the thread some interesting discussions which are relevant to discussions on threads recently.


Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
She needed prison I have to agree, but not the same punishment as Bamber, he pulled the trigger and did the deed.
How many years then for putting an innocent man in prison

Offline JackieD

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 611
She certainly is worthy of a certain amount of criticism.

Surely this pales in significance when compared to Jeremy, who murdered five people?

But it's so obvious JB is innocent set up by thriving greedy relatives and the prolific liar Muggy

Offline Jane J

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23970
She knows full well about my twitter account and is once again trying to disrupt the forum

OH!!! The arrogance! The egoism!! "MY TWITTER ACCOUNT" I don't even know what a "twitter account" is. I don't live in your world of deception.

Online ngb1066

  • Administrator
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4590
The jury were directed by Mr. Justice Drake to be wary so this does rather nullify your point.

It does not. 


Offline Jane J

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23970
We have been down this road
There were numerous people
The 'murderers' assistant got her kicks out of seeing children with bullet holes in them

You're the one who keeps spouting about it. It seems that when it comes to providing evidential FACT, you back off.