The Truth and the Documentary

[lookout]

And you are patently wrong. In fact, your comments exude all the hatred you tried to lay at my door yesterday.

Maybe your friend's put pillows over their partner's faces then if you think it's the norm, or put hands through plate glass too. Each to his own I say.

[lookout]

Where's the hatred anyway ? Never mind using what I say to justify your own behaviour, I was stating a fact about both Sheila and Julie and if you don't have a problem with their behaviour it says a lot about you as a person I'm afraid.

[Jane]

It doesn't matter how many ways you say it, your general attitude appears to be one of sympathy for Julie.

I can attempt to understand but understanding is simply that. It has nothing to do with sympathy. What she did was 34 years ago, it can't be forgotten, but bearing grudges is pointless. How my "general attitude" appears to you isn't my problem, It stems from you own mind set.

[Jane]

Where's the hatred anyway ? Never mind using what I say to justify your own behaviour, I was stating a fact about both Sheila and Julie and if you don't have a problem with their behaviour it says a lot about you as a person I'm afraid.

SUCH a shame you can't see it. You have no way of putting it right. Just as you chose to use the word "HATRED" of my behaviour, I use it against yours. It comes over loud and clear when you make mention of Julie, and on occasions when you mention Sheila. Now, I've NEVER said I don't have a problem with Julie's behaviour and it would show an appalling lack of empathy to say I have a problem with Sheila's behaviour, given what the poor girl went through in her life. How about a truce, I'll confess to having a similar level of hatred for Jeremy as your own for Julie. If you bear her none, neither of us has anything to worry about.

[ILB]

I can attempt to understand but understanding is simply that. It has nothing to do with sympathy. What she did was 34 years ago, it can't be forgotten, but bearing grudges is pointless. How my "general attitude" appears to you isn't my problem, It stems from you own mind set.

Jane can I ask you your point on view on Steve's opinion of Jeremy " not hounding Julie means he must be guilty " post conviction??

[Kaldin]

I can attempt to understand but understanding is simply that. It has nothing to do with sympathy. What she did was 34 years ago, it can't be forgotten, but bearing grudges is pointless. How my "general attitude" appears to you isn't my problem, It stems from you own mind set.

No it doesn't, it stems from your posts. If you want to sympathise it's up to you, but don't pretend that you don't.

Going by your own logic, what Jeremy did was 34 years ago, but you still think that matters.

[Steve_uk]

Let's get this clear: we think Jeremy committed the murders. If that's the case Julie takes some of the blame. However it's very difficult to construct a scenario where Julie takes blame for five murders if you believe Jeremy innocent. The Bamberettes are treading on eggshells and they must know it.

[Jane]

Jane can I ask you your point on view on Steve's opinion of Jeremy " not hounding Julie means he must be guilty " post conviction??

Okay. What I THINK he means -and I go along with the theory- is that Jeremy has probably laid off attacking Julie because if he'd rubbed her up the wrong way, she MIGHT have revealed things that could have left no doubts about his guilt. Hope I've read you right, Steve. I'll also add that I imagine there too have been rather more in the way of pillow talk between then than Julie revealed. I don't think Jeremy would want that to come to light. Having said that, I very much doubt that Jeremy's correspondence with Julie had any longevity about it.

[Jane]

No it doesn't, it stems from your posts. If you want to sympathise it's up to you, but don't pretend that you don't.

Going by your own logic, what Jeremy did was 34 years ago, but you still think that matters.

I wonder what gives you the right to tell me what you believe i'm secretly thinking?

 In my books, the murder of 5 people supersedes, in severity, any, and all, other crimes. After all, it's thus far, only 7 years per person.

[Steve_uk]

Okay. What I THINK he means -and I go along with the theory- is that Jeremy has probably laid off attacking Julie because if he'd rubbed her up the wrong way, she MIGHT have revealed things that could have left no doubts about his guilt. Hope I've read you right, Steve. I'll also add that I imagine there too have been rather more in the way of pillow talk between then than Julie revealed. I don't think Jeremy would want that to come to light. Having said that, I very much doubt that Jeremy's correspondence with Julie had any longevity about it.

I think the strategy of attacking Julie is regarded as too dangerous, and the legal establishment and members here can read into that what they like.

[Caroline]

It doesn't matter how many ways you say it, your general attitude appears to be one of sympathy for Julie.

I'm not sympathetic towards Julie but I am glad she came forward in the end and that she didn something good with her life.

I sometimes wonder who was the psychopath in this story.

The one who literally murdered his nephews and left them this card on their funeral flowers.

[Kaldin]

I'm not sympathetic towards Julie but I am glad she came forward in the end and that she didn something good with her life.

The one who literally murdered his nephews and left them this card on their funeral flowers.

I see it's from Julie as well, who apparently knew who murdered them ...

[Steve_uk]

It's in his handwriting though. How shocking and puts the crimes in the right context.

[Jane]

I see it's from Julie as well, who apparently knew who murdered them ...

Yeah, Jeremy wrote it in his usual capitals.

[Steve_uk]

..and he's probably thinking about the holidays he will now be able to have after a refusal by his parents to fund yet another trip.