Crime scene image / Sheila Caffell's Hand

[chochokeira]

Both Hartley and Vidvic are the family's main supporters and mouthpieces for the family, that is why I mention them together sometimes. Unfortunately they are I suspect both younger than most of the original family who knew Jeremy. So they are reliant upon what they have been and are told by Ann Eaton? This is the information that we get on the forum. It is all second hand information and dare I say it? Not necessarily true and accurate. It is the information that the relatives want them to know. It is time for them to begin questioning the validity of that information if they are interested in the truth.

Again you see things from your own perspective. It's second hand information if it comes from me, but not if it comes from you or other JB supporters? Is that right? No it's not.

I think it's about time you began questioning the spoon fed information that you're being given, and at times you do appear capable of that, you did say to me that you didn't buy the theory put forward in this thread, yet you publicly and staunchly oppose anything I post on it, it doesn't make sense.

Not really Hartley, because I at least was older than Jeremy when the case came to court. That I count as first hand information. You on the other hand by your own admission were 7 years old and Vidvic only knows Ann Eaton through her daughter. So I doubt that he is old enough to remember these things? Therefore I am able to weight up the various statements by different people who knew Jeremy better than you are. I can and have sat loose from it all and have been able to view things objectively. Yet you can only take as gospel that stuff that is spoonfed to you.

Oh, just one other thing. I have no axe to grind. I have no ties with the family and all I want to see is justice for someone I count as receiving a miscarriage of justice. I have no great desire to know him or the family. You on the other hand are the eyes, ears and mouthpiece of the family and are bound to come down on their side every time.

You are mistaken, I am not the eyes, ears or mouthpiece for anybody, my involvement in this forum is due to my own interest in the case and nothing else.

Then how did you get the information you claim to have FIRST HAND?

You can wink at me as much as you like, but I'd rather you just stopped making things up.

Could you point out where I have said anything is first hand, from memory I can't recall that I have done so, and it isn't a phrase that I particularly like to use. In fact you will rarely see me making any sweeping statements without saying it is just my opinion or giving my source of information.

Well Hartley, in that case if you did not get the information first hand, where did you get it? You obviously count it to be the truth? How do you know it to be the truth unless you have received it first hand? There is no other way that you could have got that information other than if you had first hand contact with the person concerned. Otherwise it jut remains conjecture and to state something as serious as that you have done causes people to doubt the person you are doubting ie ngb. You may not say that he is a lier in so many words, but that is how people have understood you as doing.
So Hartley own up please. Did you or did you not receive that information first or second hand? If second hand, how do you know it is true unless it has been verified by someone who knows from first hand knowledge?

Where I get my information from is my business, NGB has given his response, the manner in which he gave his response is something which could learn a lot from.

Hartley could be just making things up to disrupt debate and discredit people ....ie being a troll.....just a suggestion....

steve augi.....the claims from this person were made up now wasnt they.  cap fits...once discredited...always discredited.

Steve Augi, that name rings a bell somewhere...remind me, Smiffy, who was this
Steve Augi??

[Hartley]

I'm not speaking on their behalf, this simply my own opinion.

I think that they are absolutely convinced that Jeremy is guilty and that he is exactly where he should be. So there is no benefit to them to fight for the release of anything, there is no incentive and there is nothing for them to gain. They also do not have the power that people think they do.

It's also worth noting that if new evidence is released to show Jeremy to be guilty that was not originally used by the prosecution, then it can't be introduced now. Where as if evidence favourable to the defence is uncovered, then it can be introduced via the court of appeal.

Rightly or wrongly, I'd imagine that the relatives have no desire to assist Jeremys cause in this way. I don't see why that is not understood.

It works all across the board, it's the same reason why if I see something which supports the defences case, I'm not going to go out of my way to bring it to everybodies attention (although I've done more than most), likewise if Mike or one of the other supporters of Jeremy notices or sees evidence which looks bad for Jeremy, then they're not going to put neon lights around it.

It's a clever answer Steve.  But it doesn't wash with me.  Not in the slightest.  Not want to assist Jeremy's cause?  No incentive and nothing to gain?  I think I'll use your own reasoning of late and turn that around to 'plenty to lose'.  They are labouring under a weight of suspicion regarding fabrication of evidence, collusion, perjury and perverting the course of justice.  Standing foursquare behind EP's game of concealment is hardly the moral high ground is it?  They must be well aware of the issues in question.  They could speak up in the interests of openness as opposed to concealment.  They do not a do so and the message that sends out is not good one.

I'm not trying to be clever, I don't expect they're interested at all, as far as they are concerned the correct man is in jail. There is nothing which is an incentive for them to take any action, and as I say what power is it that you think they have anyway?

I also think that your descrption of them being under a weight of suspicion isn't particularly accurate, okay, perhaps that's the case with the members of this forum, but not in the real world, in the real world it's the complete opposite and supported locally very well.

I don't really know how to explain it any better other than to put yourself in their position, would you go out of your way to assist the person who you believed killed your family? I don't know perhaps you would, but I know I wouldn't.

[tyler]

I'm not speaking on their behalf, this simply my own opinion.

I think that they are absolutely convinced that Jeremy is guilty and that he is exactly where he should be. So there is no benefit to them to fight for the release of anything, there is no incentive and there is nothing for them to gain. They also do not have the power that people think they do.

It's also worth noting that if new evidence is released to show Jeremy to be guilty that was not originally used by the prosecution, then it can't be introduced now. Where as if evidence favourable to the defence is uncovered, then it can be introduced via the court of appeal.

Rightly or wrongly, I'd imagine that the relatives have no desire to assist Jeremys cause in this way. I don't see why that is not understood.

It works all across the board, it's the same reason why if I see something which supports the defences case, I'm not going to go out of my way to bring it to everybodies attention (although I've done more than most), likewise if Mike or one of the other supporters of Jeremy notices or sees evidence which looks bad for Jeremy, then they're not going to put neon lights around it.

It's a clever answer Steve.  But it doesn't wash with me.  Not in the slightest.  Not want to assist Jeremy's cause?  No incentive and nothing to gain?  I think I'll use your own reasoning of late and turn that around to 'plenty to lose'.  They are labouring under a weight of suspicion regarding fabrication of evidence, collusion, perjury and perverting the course of justice.  Standing foursquare behind EP's game of concealment is hardly the moral high ground is it?  They must be well aware of the issues in question.  They could speak up in the interests of openness as opposed to concealment.  They do not a do so and the message that sends out is not good one.

Cracking post +1

[Roch]

I'm not speaking on their behalf, this simply my own opinion.

I think that they are absolutely convinced that Jeremy is guilty and that he is exactly where he should be. So there is no benefit to them to fight for the release of anything, there is no incentive and there is nothing for them to gain. They also do not have the power that people think they do.

It's also worth noting that if new evidence is released to show Jeremy to be guilty that was not originally used by the prosecution, then it can't be introduced now. Where as if evidence favourable to the defence is uncovered, then it can be introduced via the court of appeal.

Rightly or wrongly, I'd imagine that the relatives have no desire to assist Jeremys cause in this way. I don't see why that is not understood.

It works all across the board, it's the same reason why if I see something which supports the defences case, I'm not going to go out of my way to bring it to everybodies attention (although I've done more than most), likewise if Mike or one of the other supporters of Jeremy notices or sees evidence which looks bad for Jeremy, then they're not going to put neon lights around it.

It's a clever answer Steve.  But it doesn't wash with me.  Not in the slightest.  Not want to assist Jeremy's cause?  No incentive and nothing to gain?  I think I'll use your own reasoning of late and turn that around to 'plenty to lose'.  They are labouring under a weight of suspicion regarding fabrication of evidence, collusion, perjury and perverting the course of justice.  Standing foursquare behind EP's game of concealment is hardly the moral high ground is it?  They must be well aware of the issues in question.  They could speak up in the interests of openness as opposed to concealment.  They do not a do so and the message that sends out is not good one.

I'm not trying to be clever, I don't expect they're interested at all, as far as they are concerned the correct man is in jail. There is nothing which is an incentive for them to take any action, and as I say what power is it that you think they have anyway?

I also think that your descrption of them being under a weight of suspicion isn't particularly accurate, okay, perhaps that's the case with the members of this forum, but not in the real world, in the real world it's the complete opposite and supported locally very well.

I don't really know how to explain it any better other than to put yourself in their position, would you go out of your way to assist the person who you believed killed your family? I don't know perhaps you would, but I know I wouldn't.

I'm pretty confident that the suspicion is widespread and has been for some time.  I think your 'real world' consists of local lackeys.  Though granted, I have no doubt that they have some well placed supporters also.  I do understand the point you're making in general, I just don't believe it.  I do not believe their stance is born solely out of an unshakable belief in Jeremy's guilt.  We will agree to disagree again on this one.

[jackiepreece]

Awesome posting on this thread tonight I think there's some future barristers here. I have enjoyed everyone's and read them three times :D

[tyler]

Both Hartley and Vidvic are the family's main supporters and mouthpieces for the family, that is why I mention them together sometimes. Unfortunately they are I suspect both younger than most of the original family who knew Jeremy. So they are reliant upon what they have been and are told by Ann Eaton? This is the information that we get on the forum. It is all second hand information and dare I say it? Not necessarily true and accurate. It is the information that the relatives want them to know. It is time for them to begin questioning the validity of that information if they are interested in the truth.

Again you see things from your own perspective. It's second hand information if it comes from me, but not if it comes from you or other JB supporters? Is that right? No it's not.

I think it's about time you began questioning the spoon fed information that you're being given, and at times you do appear capable of that, you did say to me that you didn't buy the theory put forward in this thread, yet you publicly and staunchly oppose anything I post on it, it doesn't make sense.

Not really Hartley, because I at least was older than Jeremy when the case came to court. That I count as first hand information. You on the other hand by your own admission were 7 years old and Vidvic only knows Ann Eaton through her daughter. So I doubt that he is old enough to remember these things? Therefore I am able to weight up the various statements by different people who knew Jeremy better than you are. I can and have sat loose from it all and have been able to view things objectively. Yet you can only take as gospel that stuff that is spoonfed to you.

Oh, just one other thing. I have no axe to grind. I have no ties with the family and all I want to see is justice for someone I count as receiving a miscarriage of justice. I have no great desire to know him or the family. You on the other hand are the eyes, ears and mouthpiece of the family and are bound to come down on their side every time.

You are mistaken, I am not the eyes, ears or mouthpiece for anybody, my involvement in this forum is due to my own interest in the case and nothing else.

Then how did you get the information you claim to have FIRST HAND?

You can wink at me as much as you like, but I'd rather you just stopped making things up.

Could you point out where I have said anything is first hand, from memory I can't recall that I have done so, and it isn't a phrase that I particularly like to use. In fact you will rarely see me making any sweeping statements without saying it is just my opinion or giving my source of information.

Well Hartley, in that case if you did not get the information first hand, where did you get it? You obviously count it to be the truth? How do you know it to be the truth unless you have received it first hand? There is no other way that you could have got that information other than if you had first hand contact with the person concerned. Otherwise it jut remains conjecture and to state something as serious as that you have done causes people to doubt the person you are doubting ie ngb. You may not say that he is a lier in so many words, but that is how people have understood you as doing.
So Hartley own up please. Did you or did you not receive that information first or second hand? If second hand, how do you know it is true unless it has been verified by someone who knows from first hand knowledge?

Where I get my information from is my business, NGB has given his response, the manner in which he gave his response is something which could learn a lot from.

Hartley could be just making things up to disrupt debate and discredit people ....ie being a troll.....just a suggestion....

steve augi.....the claims from this person were made up now wasnt they.  cap fits...once discredited...always discredited.

Steve Augi, that name rings a bell somewhere...remind me, Smiffy, who was this
Steve Augi??

There was a Steve Augi that went to my school.I think he lived in South Woodham Ferrers.

[mike tesko]

Sheila Caffells hands, and by this I mean the fingers and palms of both hands were not photographed at the morgue until after her fingerprints had been taken, by which stage all the black ink on her fingers and the palms of her hands had been washed off...

No photographs were taken at the morgue which show any ink from fingerprinting on any fingers or palms of Sheila`s hands, because it was washed off before any photographs of her hands were taken?

[Alias]

I'm not speaking on their behalf, this simply my own opinion.

I think that they are absolutely convinced that Jeremy is guilty and that he is exactly where he should be. So there is no benefit to them to fight for the release of anything, there is no incentive and there is nothing for them to gain. They also do not have the power that people think they do.

It's also worth noting that if new evidence is released to show Jeremy to be guilty that was not originally used by the prosecution, then it can't be introduced now. Where as if evidence favourable to the defence is uncovered, then it can be introduced via the court of appeal.

Rightly or wrongly, I'd imagine that the relatives have no desire to assist Jeremys cause in this way. I don't see why that is not understood.

It works all across the board, it's the same reason why if I see something which supports the defences case, I'm not going to go out of my way to bring it to everybodies attention (although I've done more than most), likewise if Mike or one of the other supporters of Jeremy notices or sees evidence which looks bad for Jeremy, then they're not going to put neon lights around it.

It's a clever answer Steve.  But it doesn't wash with me.  Not in the slightest.  Not want to assist Jeremy's cause?  No incentive and nothing to gain?  I think I'll use your own reasoning of late and turn that around to 'plenty to lose'.  They are labouring under a weight of suspicion regarding fabrication of evidence, collusion, perjury and perverting the course of justice.  Standing foursquare behind EP's game of concealment is hardly the moral high ground is it?  They must be well aware of the issues in question.  They could speak up in the interests of openness as opposed to concealment.  They do not a do so and the message that sends out is not good one.

I'm not trying to be clever, I don't expect they're interested at all, as far as they are concerned the correct man is in jail. There is nothing which is an incentive for them to take any action, and as I say what power is it that you think they have anyway?

I also think that your descrption of them being under a weight of suspicion isn't particularly accurate, okay, perhaps that's the case with the members of this forum, but not in the real world, in the real world it's the complete opposite and supported locally very well.

I don't really know how to explain it any better other than to put yourself in their position, would you go out of your way to assist the person who you believed killed your family? I don't know perhaps you would, but I know I wouldn't.

On the contrary. Jeremy´s relatives went out of their way to make sure he was put back to A prisoner status after he had gained a less harsh status.
What is it to them, as long as he is locked up? I find it petty and repulsive.

[chochokeira]

Both Hartley and Vidvic are the family's main supporters and mouthpieces for the family, that is why I mention them together sometimes. Unfortunately they are I suspect both younger than most of the original family who knew Jeremy. So they are reliant upon what they have been and are told by Ann Eaton? This is the information that we get on the forum. It is all second hand information and dare I say it? Not necessarily true and accurate. It is the information that the relatives want them to know. It is time for them to begin questioning the validity of that information if they are interested in the truth.

Again you see things from your own perspective. It's second hand information if it comes from me, but not if it comes from you or other JB supporters? Is that right? No it's not.

I think it's about time you began questioning the spoon fed information that you're being given, and at times you do appear capable of that, you did say to me that you didn't buy the theory put forward in this thread, yet you publicly and staunchly oppose anything I post on it, it doesn't make sense.

Not really Hartley, because I at least was older than Jeremy when the case came to court. That I count as first hand information. You on the other hand by your own admission were 7 years old and Vidvic only knows Ann Eaton through her daughter. So I doubt that he is old enough to remember these things? Therefore I am able to weight up the various statements by different people who knew Jeremy better than you are. I can and have sat loose from it all and have been able to view things objectively. Yet you can only take as gospel that stuff that is spoonfed to you.

Oh, just one other thing. I have no axe to grind. I have no ties with the family and all I want to see is justice for someone I count as receiving a miscarriage of justice. I have no great desire to know him or the family. You on the other hand are the eyes, ears and mouthpiece of the family and are bound to come down on their side every time.

You are mistaken, I am not the eyes, ears or mouthpiece for anybody, my involvement in this forum is due to my own interest in the case and nothing else.

Then how did you get the information you claim to have FIRST HAND?

You can wink at me as much as you like, but I'd rather you just stopped making things up.

Could you point out where I have said anything is first hand, from memory I can't recall that I have done so, and it isn't a phrase that I particularly like to use. In fact you will rarely see me making any sweeping statements without saying it is just my opinion or giving my source of information.

Well Hartley, in that case if you did not get the information first hand, where did you get it? You obviously count it to be the truth? How do you know it to be the truth unless you have received it first hand? There is no other way that you could have got that information other than if you had first hand contact with the person concerned. Otherwise it jut remains conjecture and to state something as serious as that you have done causes people to doubt the person you are doubting ie ngb. You may not say that he is a lier in so many words, but that is how people have understood you as doing.
So Hartley own up please. Did you or did you not receive that information first or second hand? If second hand, how do you know it is true unless it has been verified by someone who knows from first hand knowledge?

Where I get my information from is my business, NGB has given his response, the manner in which he gave his response is something which could learn a lot from.

Hartley could be just making things up to disrupt debate and discredit people ....ie being a troll.....just a suggestion....

steve augi.....the claims from this person were made up now wasnt they.  cap fits...once discredited...always discredited.

Steve Augi, that name rings a bell somewhere...remind me, Smiffy, who was this
Steve Augi??

There was a Steve Augi that went to my school.I think he lived in South Woodham Ferrers.

There were Augis in Colchester, where guess who else comes from...?

[Hartley]

Both Hartley and Vidvic are the family's main supporters and mouthpieces for the family, that is why I mention them together sometimes. Unfortunately they are I suspect both younger than most of the original family who knew Jeremy. So they are reliant upon what they have been and are told by Ann Eaton? This is the information that we get on the forum. It is all second hand information and dare I say it? Not necessarily true and accurate. It is the information that the relatives want them to know. It is time for them to begin questioning the validity of that information if they are interested in the truth.

Again you see things from your own perspective. It's second hand information if it comes from me, but not if it comes from you or other JB supporters? Is that right? No it's not.

I think it's about time you began questioning the spoon fed information that you're being given, and at times you do appear capable of that, you did say to me that you didn't buy the theory put forward in this thread, yet you publicly and staunchly oppose anything I post on it, it doesn't make sense.

Not really Hartley, because I at least was older than Jeremy when the case came to court. That I count as first hand information. You on the other hand by your own admission were 7 years old and Vidvic only knows Ann Eaton through her daughter. So I doubt that he is old enough to remember these things? Therefore I am able to weight up the various statements by different people who knew Jeremy better than you are. I can and have sat loose from it all and have been able to view things objectively. Yet you can only take as gospel that stuff that is spoonfed to you.

Oh, just one other thing. I have no axe to grind. I have no ties with the family and all I want to see is justice for someone I count as receiving a miscarriage of justice. I have no great desire to know him or the family. You on the other hand are the eyes, ears and mouthpiece of the family and are bound to come down on their side every time.

You are mistaken, I am not the eyes, ears or mouthpiece for anybody, my involvement in this forum is due to my own interest in the case and nothing else.

Then how did you get the information you claim to have FIRST HAND?

You can wink at me as much as you like, but I'd rather you just stopped making things up.

Could you point out where I have said anything is first hand, from memory I can't recall that I have done so, and it isn't a phrase that I particularly like to use. In fact you will rarely see me making any sweeping statements without saying it is just my opinion or giving my source of information.

Well Hartley, in that case if you did not get the information first hand, where did you get it? You obviously count it to be the truth? How do you know it to be the truth unless you have received it first hand? There is no other way that you could have got that information other than if you had first hand contact with the person concerned. Otherwise it jut remains conjecture and to state something as serious as that you have done causes people to doubt the person you are doubting ie ngb. You may not say that he is a lier in so many words, but that is how people have understood you as doing.
So Hartley own up please. Did you or did you not receive that information first or second hand? If second hand, how do you know it is true unless it has been verified by someone who knows from first hand knowledge?

Where I get my information from is my business, NGB has given his response, the manner in which he gave his response is something which could learn a lot from.

Hartley could be just making things up to disrupt debate and discredit people ....ie being a troll.....just a suggestion....

steve augi.....the claims from this person were made up now wasnt they.  cap fits...once discredited...always discredited.

Steve Augi, that name rings a bell somewhere...remind me, Smiffy, who was this
Steve Augi??

There was a Steve Augi that went to my school.I think he lived in South Woodham Ferrers.

There were Augis in Colchester, where guess who else comes from...?

It's also a name I made up, named after another forum based in tye US.

Are you sure you don't want that photograph, you really do seem to be obsessed with me, in fact the majority of your posts seem to be about me rather than the case, whether I'm around or not. 

Keep going though, it keeps you out of trouble if nothing else. 

[grahameb]

Both Hartley and Vidvic are the family's main supporters and mouthpieces for the family, that is why I mention them together sometimes. Unfortunately they are I suspect both younger than most of the original family who knew Jeremy. So they are reliant upon what they have been and are told by Ann Eaton? This is the information that we get on the forum. It is all second hand information and dare I say it? Not necessarily true and accurate. It is the information that the relatives want them to know. It is time for them to begin questioning the validity of that information if they are interested in the truth.

Again you see things from your own perspective. It's second hand information if it comes from me, but not if it comes from you or other JB supporters? Is that right? No it's not.

I think it's about time you began questioning the spoon fed information that you're being given, and at times you do appear capable of that, you did say to me that you didn't buy the theory put forward in this thread, yet you publicly and staunchly oppose anything I post on it, it doesn't make sense.

Not really Hartley, because I at least was older than Jeremy when the case came to court. That I count as first hand information. You on the other hand by your own admission were 7 years old and Vidvic only knows Ann Eaton through her daughter. So I doubt that he is old enough to remember these things? Therefore I am able to weight up the various statements by different people who knew Jeremy better than you are. I can and have sat loose from it all and have been able to view things objectively. Yet you can only take as gospel that stuff that is spoonfed to you.

Oh, just one other thing. I have no axe to grind. I have no ties with the family and all I want to see is justice for someone I count as receiving a miscarriage of justice. I have no great desire to know him or the family. You on the other hand are the eyes, ears and mouthpiece of the family and are bound to come down on their side every time.

You are mistaken, I am not the eyes, ears or mouthpiece for anybody, my involvement in this forum is due to my own interest in the case and nothing else.

Then how did you get the information you claim to have FIRST HAND?

You can wink at me as much as you like, but I'd rather you just stopped making things up.

Could you point out where I have said anything is first hand, from memory I can't recall that I have done so, and it isn't a phrase that I particularly like to use. In fact you will rarely see me making any sweeping statements without saying it is just my opinion or giving my source of information.

Well Hartley, in that case if you did not get the information first hand, where did you get it? You obviously count it to be the truth? How do you know it to be the truth unless you have received it first hand? There is no other way that you could have got that information other than if you had first hand contact with the person concerned. Otherwise it jut remains conjecture and to state something as serious as that you have done causes people to doubt the person you are doubting ie ngb. You may not say that he is a lier in so many words, but that is how people have understood you as doing.
So Hartley own up please. Did you or did you not receive that information first or second hand? If second hand, how do you know it is true unless it has been verified by someone who knows from first hand knowledge?

Where I get my information from is my business, NGB has given his response, the manner in which he gave his response is something which could learn a lot from.

Hartley could be just making things up to disrupt debate and discredit people ....ie being a troll.....just a suggestion....

steve augi.....the claims from this person were made up now wasnt they.  cap fits...once discredited...always discredited.

Steve Augi, that name rings a bell somewhere...remind me, Smiffy, who was this
Steve Augi??

There was a Steve Augi that went to my school.I think he lived in South Woodham Ferrers.

There were Augis in Colchester, where guess who else comes from...?

It's also a name I made up, named after another forum based in tye US.

Are you sure you don't want that photograph, you really do seem to be obsessed with me, in fact the majority of your posts seem to be about me rather than the case, whether I'm around or not. 

Keep going though, it keeps you out of trouble if nothing else. 

Phew! Thank goodness for that. I thought for a moment we'd discovered a new elf race living in Colchester?