0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Her answer explicitly states "Jeremy said"RIVLIN: How could you imagine that the blood at the end of the silencer might be a rabbits blood?ANN EATON: I don't know.RIVLIN: That is what you told the court. How could you imagine that it might be a rabbits blood?ANN EATON: Jeremy said he had been shooting rabbits the night before.However Jeremy SAID he did not get a chance to shoot them. And Jeremy also SAID the silencer had been removed from the gun. Ann Eaton knew Jeremy SAID this and hence her answer "Jeremy said he had been shooting rabbits the night before." as for why she thought rabbit blood was on the silencer is clearly a lie.Moreover, there is a major discrepancy in her trial testimony and her September 8th statement. Its not just what she wrote down here.
No, initially Jeremy said he HAD 'missed' the rabbits and when asked how any shots were fired, he seemed unsure - giving the impression that he fired at them but missed and they ran away. In other words, he was initially evasive//contradictory. I guess he realised that the police might look for evidence and there would be none, so he changed his recollection of events to mean that he 'missed' the rabbits because they were longer so no shots were fired. I posted evidence of this weeks ago!http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9878.msg450212.html#msg450212
Stop trying to chance the subject again Caroline. What AE heard from JB in early August is what matters here. The prosecution went throught all of JBs August statements and September interrogations. To date the only part of JBs September interrogations the prosecution have ever found useful and thus used against him in court, is his own admission he could enter the building through a locked window. They didn't find any serious discrepancies to bolster their case. They didn't bring up what you keep bringing up here because its their job to prosecute, not get laughed at.
No its been cut. look at the right hand side of the scan. Mike has uploaded other copies of the testimony without anything missing. So it makes no sense for him to be behind this.
Not that it matters in any way, but I don't agree with you. I think it's bits of paper stuck on (probably by Mike).
I agree about the paper, you can see the straight line of the paper. Not sure who is responsible though.
I'm only thinking that it was Mike because he has scanned most of the documents in from paper copies.Plus he can be quite mischievous and it's the sort of thing that I might expect him to do.It might not be him though.
More to the point, he David knows what the statements contain and has or has seen copies, why isn 't he sharing this information?
I'll hazard a guess that it's because what's been removed is damaging to Jeremy's cause. Had it been otherwise he'd have only too happy to share.
Hmmm, not sure he's have highlighted it at all if that were the case. Storm in a tea cup most likely.
If we're to believe David -who also appears to know something of what the missing parts contain claiming as being missing "crucial parts of AE and DB's testimony"-