Lest We Forget...................

[guest7363]

If we take this part of it QC, coming from Susan,

339. Susan Battersby was also being interviewed on the same day and at the same time and she independently admitted the cheque book fraud to the police. She made a written statement to the police under caution. That statement commenced by expressing her belief that she would not be taken before the court as a result of making the statement.

The defence have this information, you’ve got Susan saying it was her belief that she wouldn’t be taken to court, not mentioning any caution ect

Yet Julie whether mistakingly or on purpose says she got cautioned, surely alarm bells should have rang somewhere, why did Julie receive a caution and Susan didn’t?

The defence had all this information, maybe they didn’t think it was a problem or maybe they missed it?  Surely as a defence you would have everything about Julie’s police record?

[Caroline]

Thanks!  You're the greatest Caroline!  I think we should start calling you Caroline 100, because you're 100% about everything.

Well if you think so QC, but I'm not 100% about everything. Not that I would want to contradict you! I'm not even sure if that's allowed? I'll go with whatever you think is right.

[guest7363]

If we take this part of it QC, coming from Susan,

339. Susan Battersby was also being interviewed on the same day and at the same time and she independently admitted the cheque book fraud to the police. She made a written statement to the police under caution. That statement commenced by expressing her belief that she would not be taken before the court as a result of making the statement.

The defence have this information, you’ve got Susan saying it was her belief that she wouldn’t be taken to court, not mentioning any caution ect

Yet Julie whether mistakingly or on purpose says she got cautioned, surely alarm bells should have rang somewhere, why did Julie receive a caution and Susan didn’t?

The defence had all this information, maybe they didn’t think it was a problem or maybe they missed it?  Surely as a defence you would have everything about Julie’s police record?

As I understand it, the defence never pushed or questioned Susan about the Cheque Book fraud, which I find very very odd, all she was asked about was the timings of the Calls.  WHAT, here is a chance to discredit a witness, yet they gave her an easy ride?

[guest29835]

Yep, then I wrote to him and asked him questions for myself. I guess sitting on the fence is always a safe place - mind you don't get splinters!

Just to let you all know that I received a letter from Jeremy today and he said that he mentioned 'no amount' when asking about the wallet. He said he doesn't remember the incident that well but that he is sure he didn't mention an amount. I am happy that he has now answered and accept his reply. It's now a case of Jeremy's word against AE's

[Caroline]

You have a point QC or as usual are you just looking for an argument? By the way when I said it was his word against AE - I believe AE because in a separate letter when he had forgotten all about me asking the question in the first place - he told me all about looking for the wallet and how AE was 'buzzing' when he was unable to find it - so so much for not remembering the event.

Yes, I asked many questions, that being one of them - the answer came 2 years later when I had to ask again.

[guest29835]

You have a point QC or as usual are you just looking for an argument? By the way when I said it was his word against AE - I believe AE because in a separate letter when he had forgotten all about me asking the question in the first place - he told me all about looking for the wallet and how AE was 'buzzing' when he was unable to find it - so so much for not remembering the event.

Yes, I asked many questions, that being one of them - the answer came 2 years later when I had to ask again.

Perhaps post up redacted copies of both letters?  We can then make our own judgement about it.  I doubt Jeremy could object to publishing the letters on copyright grounds.  As long as you post up only the relevant parts for the purposes of discussion, it's fair dealing.  He also can't object on the basis of some moral right to privacy.  He's a convicted prisoner who protests his innocence: it's a matter of public interest.

[Caroline]

Perhaps post up redacted copies of both letters?  We can then make our own judgement about it.  I doubt Jeremy could object to publishing the letters on copyright grounds.  As long as you post up only the relevant parts for the purposes of discussion, it's fair dealing.  He also can't object on the basis of some moral right to privacy.  He's a convicted prisoner who protests his innocence: it's a matter of public interest.

I have posted letters here before and it led to the usual BS, so I won't be posting them here again.

[guest29835]

I have posted letters here before and it led to the usual BS, so I won't be posting them here again.

Can you link to where you have posted these letters?

[Caroline]

Can you link to where you have posted these letters?

I took them down.

[guest29835]

I took them down.

If what you say is true, then you are holding evidence.

I think it is fair that we ask you to support your claims.  If you can’t, then we can dismiss what you say.

It’s not that I’m saying you’re lying, as such, it’s more that a lot depends on one’s interpretation of what is said and not said.  We must remember that these events will have taken place many years prior to your letters, and Jeremy’s memory will come and go – a common problem that we all have. You seem to interpret this as suspicious, which suggests to me that you are giving us your slant on things, which in turn I think makes it important that we see what was actually written – both by you and him – before we accept your version of it.

I'm not asking you to send us the full letters, just the relevant parts.

It’s your choice, of course, but if you won’t, then I’m sure you will appreciate that I will take a view accordingly.

[Caroline]

If what you say is true, then you are holding evidence.

I think it is fair that we ask you to support your claims.  If you can’t, then we can dismiss what you say.

It’s not that I’m saying you’re lying, as such, it’s more that a lot depends on one’s interpretation of what is said and not said.  We must remember that these events will have taken place many years prior to your letters, and Jeremy’s memory will come and go – a common problem that we all have. You seem to interpret this as suspicious, which suggests to me that you are giving us your slant on things, which in turn I think makes it important that we see what was actually written – both by you and him – before we accept your version of it.

I'm not asking you to send us the full letters, just the relevant parts.

It’s your choice, of course, but if you won’t, then I’m sure you will appreciate that I will take a view accordingly.

I have already posted the letters and various people have  seen them including NGB and Roch, I won't be posting them again. I really don't give a hoot what view you take. YOU brought this subject up as a means of having a go, now because of my response, you're curious. You clearly think the wallet aspect is suspicious yourself - the fact that he went looking for it is a matter of record and the question to ask is 'how did he know it was missing'? He must have known it's location to be sure that it was missing and not just somewhere else in the house other than where he looked.

[JackieD]

I’ve not seen the letters I must have been on holiday
Just post them up unless you have something to hide
Why even take them down???
What reason did you take them down for???
I think QC is being perfectly reasonable. I would like to see how QC interprets the letters
Obviously all the legal people representing Jeremy have seen the letters and continue to defend Jeremy

What a fuss

[guest29835]

I have already posted the letters and various people have  seen them including NGB and Roch, I won't be posting them again. I really don't give a hoot what view you take. YOU brought this subject up as a means of having a go, now because of my response, you're curious. You clearly think the wallet aspect is suspicious yourself - the fact that he went looking for it is a matter of record and the question to ask is 'how did he know it was missing'? He must have known it's location to be sure that it was missing and not just somewhere else in the house other than where he looked.

Of course it could be suspicious if he knew what was in the wallet.  Yes, that's why I'm interested. 

But we only have your interpretation of things, and you refuse to let us judge for ourselves.

And actually, you're the one who brought it up.  You don't mention the wallet specifically in this thread, but I know it's one of the things you alluded to earlier.  You mention it now and then on the Forum and I see from previous discussions that when people ask you questions about it, you get huffy and refuse to answer.  You seem to want it both ways.

It's entirely your business what view you take about Jeremy, but you come on here and tell us this, that and the other, and it's reasonable to ask questions about it.  Nobody is accusing you of lying, it's just that over a long period of time, I've learned to be sceptical whenever somebody starts blackening Jeremy or casting aspersions on him.  More often than not, there's little substance in it, rather it's that the person simply dislikes Jeremy.

Perhaps if NG1066 and Roch have copies, they could post them up here?  I'm sure Caroline won't mind, though I don't understand why Caroline is making an issue about it.  Just post them up.  What's the big deal?

[gringo]

Of course it could be suspicious if he knew what was in the wallet.  Yes, that's why I'm interested. 

But we only have your interpretation of things, and you refuse to let us judge for ourselves.

And actually, you're the one who brought it up.  You don't mention the wallet specifically in this thread, but I know it's one of the things you alluded to earlier.  You mention it now and then on the Forum and I see from previous discussions that when people ask you questions about it, you get huffy and refuse to answer.  You seem to want it both ways.

It's entirely your business what view you take about Jeremy, but you come on here and tell us this, that and the other, and it's reasonable to ask questions about it.  Nobody is accusing you of lying, it's just that over a long period of time, I've learned to be sceptical whenever somebody starts blackening Jeremy or casting aspersions on him.  More often than not, there's little substance in it, rather it's that the person simply dislikes Jeremy.

Perhaps if NG1066 and Roch have copies, they could post them up here?  I'm sure Caroline won't mind, though I don't understand why Caroline is making an issue about it.  Just post them up.  What's the big deal?

    He didn't know how much was in the wallet. He also didn't know that Anne Eaton had taken it and that she withheld this information from him when he complained to the police about the wallet being missing. Jeremy said there was 4/500 hundred pounds in the wallet as I remember.
   Anne Eaton definitely knew how much it contained because it was she who had removed her deceased uncle's wallet.
   The letters won't be posted because there are a standing joke and easily dissected

[Adam]

Obviously Caroline did not change stance from hardcore supporter to hardcore guilter because Bamber either mistakedly or deliberately did not answer one question on the wallet.

It would have been a build up of different things over several months.

The forum was 90% supporters when I joined. Now it is more 50%. Some of the points made by guilters would have influenced her.