Credible witness?

[Jane]

Sorry but I'd be incensed if I'd known and wouldn't be able to keep something like that to myself-----maybe you're different and wouldn't let on. In other words you'd cover for a murderer.

So you'd have lied, would you? What could have been said -other than immediately- MORE than Julie said. However much you'd like her to have claimed that he'd committed the crime -and clearly still would- she'd have been lying to have said anything more because she wasn't there to witness it.

[Jane]

She either knows or she doesn't but either way she'd be in the manure.

Okay, she 'knows' the sort of things that you, I, and most of the population know. So?

[lookout]

So you'd have lied, would you? What could have been said -other than immediately- MORE than Julie said. However much you'd like her to have claimed that he'd committed the crime -and clearly still would- she'd have been lying to have said anything more because she wasn't there to witness it.

I'd have lied ? How do you work that out when I more or less said I'd open my mouth if I knew someone was a murderer ?

Never mind what Julie said-----there was one thing that she hadn't said and that was that he was the killer ! It was never written down so don't try and get out of it.

[Jane]

Sorry but I'd be incensed if I'd known and wouldn't be able to keep something like that to myself-----maybe you're different and wouldn't let on. In other words you'd cover for a murderer.

OR I might blame the wrong person. Have you ever considered that she may have HOPED Sheila was responsible?

[lookout]

I'm more of an honest person and would have been adamant in court. A murder charge isn't a case of " I don't know " . She couldn't say no or she'd have lost her £25,000 and she couldn't say yes because she knows damn well that it wasn't him ! Which is the conclusion I came to a long time ago.

[Caroline]

I'm more of an honest person and would have been adamant in court. A murder charge isn't a case of " I don't know " . She couldn't say no or she'd have lost her £25,000 and she couldn't say yes because she knows damn well that it wasn't him ! Which is the conclusion I came to a long time ago.

The 25 grand wasn't on the table when she went to the police.

[Jane]

I'd have lied ? How do you work that out when I more or less said I'd open my mouth if I knew someone was a murderer ?

Never mind what Julie said-----there was one thing that she hadn't said and that was that he was the killer ! It was never written down so don't try and get out of it.

God, you're doing your damndest to turn this into Julie's responsibility, aren't you. You really do give her too much power. She hardly presented herself as a sympathetic figure. I doubt she had the charisma or allure to mesmerize the judge and jury.

I have no doubt about you opening your mouth "Tell the truth and shame the devil" eh, Lookout but you appear never to doubt your own rightness irrelevant of whether the object of your belief is guilty or innocent. Julie didn't HAVE to claim that he was guilty. It really wasn't necessary for her to believe that he was. All she needed to do was exactly what she did do. She told them what he'd said. She could do no more because she wasn't there.

[lookout]

OR I might blame the wrong person. Have you ever considered that she may have HOPED Sheila was responsible?

Hoped ? She knew !!

[Jane]

Hoped ? She knew !!

How do you think anyone 'knows' things when they're not there to witness it?

[lookout]

God, you're doing your damndest to turn this into Julie's responsibility, aren't you. You really do give her too much power. She hardly presented herself as a sympathetic figure. I doubt she had the charisma or allure to mesmerize the judge and jury.

I have no doubt about you opening your mouth "Tell the truth and shame the devil" eh, Lookout but you appear never to doubt your own rightness irrelevant of whether the object of your belief is guilty or innocent. Julie didn't HAVE to claim that he was guilty. It really wasn't necessary for her to believe that he was. All she needed to do was exactly what she did do. She told them what he'd said. She could do no more because she wasn't there.

I also wish you guilters would make up your minds----one minute JM's a 20 year old, dare I repeat, scared person in court, the next you're talking about a non-sympathetic person.

Julie HAD to be on the guilty side to claim her £25,000 so what are you talking about ? 

[lookout]

The 25 grand wasn't on the table when she went to the police.

It would have been halfway with their thinking.

[Jane]

I also wish you guilters would make up your minds----one minute JM's a 20 year old, dare I repeat, scared person in court, the next you're talking about a non-sympathetic person.

Julie HAD to be on the guilty side to claim her £25,000 so what are you talking about ?

So d'you you think Julie knobbled the jury? How else could she guarantee they'd find him guilty? Yes, I think she was scared. Scared can be masked, though, which MAY be why No, I don't think she'd have come over as a particularly sympathetic person.

How could she be other than "on the guilty side"? She was a witness for the prosecution.

[Jane]

It would have been halfway with their thinking.

What are you claiming to 'know' now, which you have no proof of?

[Caroline]

It would have been halfway with their thinking.

The 25 grand wasn't on the table when she went to the police.

[Jane]

The 25 grand wasn't on the table when she went to the police.

Perhaps, as Lookout is keen to make this an all inclusive stitch up, she's implying that the police contacted NOTW on Julie's behalf? Maybe that they received a pay out?