Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21

Such has to be proved. Word of mouth can't be, and paper trails become notoriously difficult to locate. I see no reason for a judge to become involved.





" Word of mouth " is what convicted Jeremy instead of concrete/ forensic evidence against him .
22




Much influence and bias via the prosecution to the judge equals an unfair trial.


Such has to be proved. Word of mouth can't be, and paper trails become notoriously difficult to locate. I see no reason for a judge to become involved.
23
I wasn't referring to the robberies or drug offences, or to the pillow incident. According to her statements, Julie withheld information before and after the crime. Judging from her testimony in court, she would have been more useful to the prosecution as a defendant than a witness.

Do we know when the police decided not to prosecute her?

Julie could not be prosecuted for not approaching the police prior to the massacre. Saying she didn't believe Bamber was serious is a sufficient reason.

She approached the police a month after the massacre with further information. The police couldn't prosecute her for waiting a month as she was now a vital police witness.

The other non related minor crimes were considered not worthy of prosecution. The likely punishments being a fine.
24
Other high profile cases / Re: juilan assange rape chardge.
« Last post by David1819 on Today at 06:14 PM »
     I did watch the first part of the Rich Hall piece on Rich Hall posted by David and it was just wild speculation and conjecture based on nothing.

We can agree on that.

If you fancy a chuckle watch this one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_ZsftZ9GCM
25
She was the one who brought them up & included them in her WS.

The defence brought them up at trial to try to undermine her as what she said about Bamber was so convincing.





Because she'd been told to  ::)
26
You are hilarious Adam, does anyone take you seriously. I bet you wished you had been friendly with Myra Hindley too. She got her kicks out of looking at dead bodies like Julie.
Peas in a pod.

Do you believe Julie told 5 people for moral support prior to her approach to the police?
27

Such, whilst not necessarily changing any of the feelings/gut instincts the relatives had regarding Jeremy, NOR lessening the professional rivalry/personal dislike which may have existed between the two Jones', it goes a long way to negate framing of the industrial nature. It's unnecessary for either the defence or prosecution to have belief in the defendant's innocence/guilt, their job is only to prosecute or defend. I think it's entirely possible, unless there's personal animosity, certain information sometimes gets shared.





Much influence and bias via the prosecution to the judge equals an unfair trial.
28




She had no other option but to open up about her own criminal activities whilst standing as a prosecution witness.

She was the one who brought them up & included them in her WS.

The defence brought them up at trial to try to undermine her as what she said about Bamber was so convincing.
29
You are hilarious Adam, does anyone take you seriously. I bet you wished you had been friendly with Myra Hindley too. She got her kicks out of looking at dead bodies like Julie.
Peas in a pod.

No
30




That last paragraph has made me wonder for long enough.


Such, whilst not necessarily changing any of the feelings/gut instincts the relatives had regarding Jeremy, NOR lessening the professional rivalry/personal dislike which may have existed between the two Jones', it goes a long way to negate framing of the industrial nature. It's unnecessary for either the defence or prosecution to have belief in the defendant's innocence/guilt, their job is only to prosecute or defend. I think it's entirely possible, unless there's personal animosity, certain information sometimes gets shared.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10