Police received screaming and ranting responses from inside farmhouse

[Hartley]

Maybe, but he can always be questioned and asked where he got certain bits of information and a possible link could be obtained that way?

Agreed, but as it is Mike who is introducing these little bits and pieces to support his own arguments then the onus is upon Mike to provide proof, or risk not being believed. It makes no difference to me.

[Chochokeira]

Not sure what it is that has convinced you to get involved again, but you are welcome to your opinion, unfortunately I believe you are in the minority.

Hartley, I am not "getting involved again here". I have never been away. I'm always researching in the backroom. I continued researching even when I deleted my account for a few days. A fortnight's leave I took over the Christmas and new year period,  coupled with one of the campaigns I'm organising coming to a head, does not leave me much time to post at present, but there are no grounds to suggest that I am no longer involved.

I am very much involved and am as staunchly convinced of Jeremy's innocence and that he has been unjustly denied a fair trial and fair Appeals as ever.

As long as Mike has no problem with me posting here I shall continue. I don't need your permission or for you to tell me I'm welcome to my opinion, I'll post whenever I wish to do so.

As for me being in the minority, dream on, Hartley, the list of people you've lobbed personal abuse at here alone puts you very much in the minority.

[Hartley]

Hartley, I am not "getting involved again here". I have never been away. I'm always researching in the backroom. I continued researching even when I deleted my account for a few days. A fortnight's leave I took over the Christmas and new year period,  coupled with one of the campaigns I'm organising coming to a head, does not leave me much time to post at present, but there are no grounds to suggest that I am no longer involved.

I am very much involved and am as staunchly convinced of Jeremy's innocence and that he has been unjustly denied a fair trial and fair Appeals as ever.

As long as Mike has no problem with me posting here I shall continue. I don't need your permission or for you to tell me I'm welcome to my opinion, I'll post whenever I wish to do so.

As for me being in the minority, dream on, Hartley, the list of people you've lobbed personal abuse at here alone puts you very much in the minority.

Chocho, if there is a problem which you have with me, then please take it up with NGB or Grahame. Thank you .

[Chochokeira]

I think you're probably referring to the wrong forum!!?? This is not the Hartley I recognise!!

Hi Vidvic,

You would recognise this Hartley all too well if you were on the pro side of the fence. He's hardly going to heap abuse on you as he does on others on the pro side here, is he?

[grahameb]

sorry Andrea, What some people think is JB is not Not Guilty,when in fact he was found so,therefore he is. the challenge is to prove he is not,not to state without evidence his is not guilty

Unfortunately that is the problem. Some of us don't think that all the evidence was revealed at the original trial and even that which was, was faulty or should have been inadmissible which constitutes to our mind a miscarriage of justice. These a not but a few people either. But includes many legal people including a substantial number of barristers to boot. Now if these people who know about the law say there was a miscarriage of justice, then I think it would be wise for us to take note of what they say and not continue to wear our blinkers for fear of upsetting the family.

[Hartley]

Unfortunately that is the problem. Some of us don't think that all the evidence was revealed at the original trial and even that which was, was faulty or should have been inadmissible which constitutes to our mind a miscarriage of justice. These a not but a few people either. But includes many legal people including a substantial number of barristers to boot. Now if these people who know about the law say there was a miscarriage of justice, then I think it would be wise for us to take note of what they say and not continue to wear our blinkers for fear of upsetting the family.

That's a fair point to make, however many of the reasons that people have given for their belief that there was not a fair trial has been looked at and addressed during the two appeals. Okay people may then form an opinion that the Appeal Judges got it wrong, but there's not much else to be done about that.
The only real (just in my opinion) possibility left open, is if there is evidence, which having been withheld, gets released and shows Jeremy to be innocent. Again it is just my opinion, but I do not believe that there is anything withheld that will show him to be innocent, but respect  that other people have formed differing opinions.

[Chochokeira]

Chocho, if there is a problem which you have with me, then please take it up with NGB or Grahame. Thank you .

I don't need to, Hartley, they've both been on the receiving end of your personal abuse and distortions too, so I'm sure they understand what I'm referring to here.

[Hartley]

I don't need to, Hartley, they've both been on the receiving end of your personal abuse and distortions too, so I'm sure they understand what I'm referring to here.

Oh okay.

[tonyb]

Unfortunately that is the problem. Some of us don't think that all the evidence was revealed at the original trial and even that which was, was faulty or should have been inadmissible which constitutes to our mind a miscarriage of justice. These a not but a few people either. But includes many legal people including a substantial number of barristers to boot. Now if these people who know about the law say there was a miscarriage of justice, then I think it would be wise for us to take note of what they say and not continue to wear our blinkers for fear of upsetting the family.

I totally agree Grahame,but starting posts with IF don't really stack up IMO

[grahameb]

I totally agree Grahame,but starting posts with IF don't really stack up IMO

I don't think I started my post with if?

[Hartley]

I don't think I started my post with if?

If you did though, what then? 

[grahameb]

If you did though, what then? 

I remember writing a big IF on the side of a lorry for Mr. Sampson at Chigboro Farm once. I asked him what it meant? He replied, "Well it will make people look won't it?"

[tonyb]

I don't think I started my post with if?

sorry Grahame, misunderstanding.I was in general trying to get across the point that an awfull lot of the posts are "if this happened"or "if that happened" and weave the little evidence into a theory.
I'm sure if i thought not that hard I could come up with some weird and wild theories to fit the known facts.
I look at this subject line and the only screaming and ranting I can see evidence off is Mike loosing his cool this afternoon.

[Jackiepreece]

Hartley you could spend the next 25 years on this forum defending your friends but there was/is no evidence to show Jeremy is guilty

Of course you will defend Mugford and say she is telling the truth because it helps the relatives your friend when an application to appeal is pending

FACT is I believe 99% of the general public would not believe her if they knew all about her background and NOTW deal

I believe most of what Mike posts on here because he has no reason to lie and I do not believe he would support a child murderer unless he believed 100% in his innocence

On top of that we have the witheld evidence

Juries make mistakes i e Eddie gilfoyle

That jury convicted on the evidence put forward to them

Imagine how they feel today

Justice must be seen to be done on this case and I will fight until this happens

[bigpod]

That's a fair point to make, however many of the reasons that people have given for their belief that there was not a fair trial has been looked at and addressed during the two appeals. Okay people may then form an opinion that the Appeal Judges got it wrong, but there's not much else to be done about that.
The only real (just in my opinion) possibility left open, is if there is evidence, which having been withheld, gets released and shows Jeremy to be innocent. Again it is just my opinion, but I do not believe that there is anything withheld that will show him to be innocent, but respect  that other people have formed differing opinions.

I think the real issue is "reasonable doubt".

Unfortunately I think the trial was tainted by the mass of withheld evidence, and if the whole of the evidence we now have were presentedd there would have been a great probability of at least one more juror having reasonable doubt, therefore bringing a different outcome.
The appeals seem to follow the Denning position of protecting the majesty of the law, and seem massively unfair.
The only way justice will truely be served is a full retrial based on full disclosure. I have repeatedly said this - I wonder if you would think this is a fair position.