Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
The actual crime for me also gives me trouble in believing he had the strength to carry out the crime without getting a mark on him. He was a wee naff at the time and she would have marked him somewhere.
Also the changing of the search party statements is worrying. From seeing the dog scrape at the wall to not seeing it at all is not possible to me.

What do we actually know about these statements, other than that they changed - from the dog scrambling, reacting at the wall to not reacting at all.

Is the discrepancy in where the dog reacted? rather than the reaction of the dog?

An example is given  from one statement by SK, which is in connection with the dog being on its hind legs - nose level with the V?
What was actually said in those first statements that drew suspicion upon LM?
Did they all say that the dog scrambled about, around the V area?
Did LM further say that he had walked some distance past the V when the dog reacted?
Did they all say that they had walked some distance past the V when the dog reacted?
CM states in her podcast that JaJ gave evidence in court, to the effect that she had said, LM shone his torch to the left through this V? or saw LM shine his torch to the left? Appears she means whilst LM was over the V as she scoffs at the ability of JaJ being able to see through walls, as she wouldn't have been tall enough to see over this V?

SL:
Quote
So no-one, anywhere, ever (except for the prosecutor in grand theatrical style at trial) suggested the dog reacted 40 or 50 feet past the V break. But it's not irrelevant if the dog reacted 10 - 15 feet past the V - in fact, that tallies with what the Janine, Kelly and Luke all said in their initial statements - the gran couldn't say either way because she'd fallen a little behind the others and didn't see what the dog did. But that also tallies with the stories that Luke handed the dog's lead to Alice (who was behind him and therefore closest to the V) and the others carried on down the path.
[/color]

This omits to mention that, when giving a statement to the FLO, LM drew a diagram as to where this dog reacted. X marks the spot so to speak?
He shows the FLO where he and Mia? were on one side of the wall - using the words 'parallel' to where Jodi was on the other side?
Were the other members of the search party, also inclusive on this diagram? would imagine they would be of course.
Being parallel does suggest some 40ft past the V for this is how far it was?
Important in relation to the dog being able to strongly pick up a scent?

We know the Jury were taken to the locus, were the search party taken at any point - to clarify whom was where?
It is however relevant IF the dog did react JUST 10-15ft past this V rather than 40ft?
However, the dispute appears to have been, where everyone was when they all saw the dog reacting?
Was it around the V?
The theatrical style used at trial to determine this?

Think about it this way:

The search party walk 10-15 ft past this V, by this point AW is just approaching the V? about 10 -15 ft before the V?
Do all of the search party say in their statements, that they left this elderly woman on her own? That she had fallen someway behind?
The dog scrambles about at the wall, up on its legs air sniffing (at something 30 ft down from this point?)
We don't know which way the wind was blowing - what we do know is, its a damp, dreek night? It's a thick wall.
LM backtracks to the V in the wall whilst SK and JaJ continue down?
By the time LM gets to the V  (mere seconds) AW has reached it?
He gives the lead to AW and goes over?
Not sure how, at this point JaJ sees him shining his torch to the left?
However, by the time LM is back, at the V, climbs over, walks down to the left - how far do we assume SK and JaJ have gone?
He shouts out and they backtrack to the V?
The dog at this point is on its hind legs at the V or was this on the way down?
Did the search party stop at the V on the way down?
Whose stories 'tallied' about the dogs lead getting handed to AW?
Were they all, around the V when this happened?

Your comment about the wee 'naff'? The bigger they are the harder they fall - comes to mind.



92
The actual crime for me also gives me trouble in believing he had the strength to carry out the crime without getting a mark on him. He was a wee naff at the time and she would have marked him somewhere.
Also the changing of the search party statements is worrying. From seeing the dog scrape at the wall to not seeing it at all is not possible to me.

You have not seen the crime scene photos, autopsy reports, or the pathologists court testimony. We need to see this material in order to make a our on judgement. Does Sandra expect people on the forum to investigate an alleged miscarriage of justice without seeing the material that convicted him?

If we had the material this thread would probably be 40 pages instead of 400.

PS: The circumstantial evidence is enough to infer that she would not have marked him.
93
Hi Lookout

Jeremy's trial was a Joke.

JM got £25,000 and her fraud charges dropped.
AE got control of the caravan park and her debts to JB eliminated.
DB and RWB got all the rest of the £500,000 worth of assets.

It would be funny if it weren't so serious.  :-\

And Jeremy got a whole life tariff for murdering his whole family which included two six year old children!

None of that's funny!!
94
Hi Lookout

Jeremy's trial was a Joke.

JM got £25,000 and her fraud charges dropped.
AE got control of the caravan park and her debts to JB eliminated.
DB and RWB got all the rest of the £500,000 worth of assets.

It would be funny if it weren't so serious.  :-\


95
JM must have been trembling as each remark/accusation she made she was clutching at straws because she'd been peeved by JB's behaviour with another woman but also comparing £25,000 and the truth. Under such circumstances the former seemed more acceptable.

Hi Lookout

Jeremy's trial was a Joke.

JM got £25,000 and her fraud charges dropped.
AE got control of the caravan park and her debts to JB eliminated.
DB and RWB got all the rest of the £500,000 worth of assets.

It would be funny if it weren't so serious.  :-\
96
But she is not repeating this from anyone. She has made this up herself

- Claims JB said he hired MM to kill the family at WHF
- Claims she believes what JB has told her.
- Says she does not know if MM has ever been to WHF

Same goes with what she said about the bank fraud

- Claims she went to the bank on her own to repay the money she stole.
- Bank manager says the police brought her in and the whole thing was all pre-arrainged.

You cannot blame JB for these lies how ever much you try.

Do you have any intention of answering the question as to what your explanation was for this woman's behaviour prior to changing your mind along with Paul Harrison and Caroline?

Do you have any intention of answering the question about your report being one of the 5 submitted to the CCRC because you implied it yesterday!

You don't seem to be able to grasp that by the time Julie was asked about MM, she believed that Jeremy had LIED about him being responsible. It really is quite simple!
97
JM must have been trembling as each remark/accusation she made she was clutching at straws because she'd been peeved by JB's behaviour with another woman but also comparing £25,000 and the truth. Under such circumstances the former seemed more acceptable.
98

If you repeat what someone else told you -be it truth or lie- the responsibility for those words aren't yours..........................HOWEVER! Should you choose to embellish them with your own words, the responsibility for them is yours.

But she is not repeating this from anyone. She has made this up herself

- Claims JB said he hired MM to kill the family at WHF
- Claims she believes what JB has told her.
- Says she does not know if MM has ever been to WHF

Same goes with what she said about the bank fraud

- Claims she went to the bank on her own to repay the money she stole.
- Bank manager says the police brought her in and the whole thing was all pre-arrainged.

You cannot blame JB for these lies how ever much you try.

Do you have any intention of answering the question as to what your explanation was for this woman's behaviour prior to changing your mind along with Paul Harrison and Caroline?
99

But David puts it in a way in which the reader might believe her words were said within 24 hours of the crime being committed. Much has been made, over the years, about what Julie may have felt. All are different. ALL, in my opinion, are probably right. She'd have gone through a gamut of differing emotions, but she was an intelligent girl and unlikely to have accepted -for long- Jeremy's explanation of hiring a hit man, especially as he'd previously discussed, with her, ways in which he might rid himself of the encumbrance of his family.

 So if we come back to her words, which David holds to be a lie, we can clearly see that for the first part she is simply telling them, the police, what Jeremy said -any lie, therefore being Jeremy's- BUT the claim that she doesn't know if MM had ever visited the farm are her own thoughts. By voicing them and owning responsibility for them -and I have NO reason to doubt them- she's hinting that she doesn't believe what Jeremy has said.

By then, she wasn't hinting, she didn't believe that MM was responsible so she wouldn't know if he'd been to WHF or not and even if she had still believed it could be true - she still wouldn't know for sure if he'd been.
100
Spot on bullseye :)

The actual crime for me also gives me trouble in believing he had the strength to carry out the crime without getting a mark on him. He was a wee naff at the time and she would have marked him somewhere.
Also the changing of the search party statements is worrying. From seeing the dog scrape at the wall to not seeing it at all is not possible to me.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]