A Question For Hartley

[Chochokeira]

Well that's exactly the point. What you are referring to as key evidence which contradicts the case put forward by the prosecution, actually is nothing of the kind, as has been assessed by the CCRC with their preliminary decision. Whether that preliminary decision changes or not we will find out soon.

I think even the staunchest of Jeremys supporters would admit that there is no evidence that he is innocent. Yes there is a lot of speculation and theories, but there is no definitive evidence. (Or at least none which has been presented as such on this forum).

I do not see it as a valid argument to say that withheld evidence must show Jeremy to be innocent, simply because it's been withheld. The reason for this is immediately obvious and apparent by the simple fact that documents which have been released, have not indicated that Jeremy is innocent.

I am equally stunned that others are happy to just assume that there is something yet to be seen which shows Jeremy to be innocent.

Illogical, circular argument, Hartley.

We're discussing withheld evidence.

Naturally there won't be the evidence - it's withheld!

[Hartley]

Illogical, circular argument, Hartley.

We're discussing withheld evidence.

Naturally there won't be the evidence - it's withheld!

Blimey, you are in danger of agreeing with me here. 

[Chochokeira]

Blimey, you are in danger of agreeing with me here. 

No, I am not. I am at work...unlike you? I am busy...unlike...

I will qualify the above,:

There is unlikely to be definitive, absolute proof when the this is being withheld,

[Hartley]

No, I am not. I am at work...unlike you? I am busy...unlike...

I will qualify the above,:

There is unlikely to be definitive, absolute proof when the this is being withheld,

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, is it an attempted derogatory comment, if it is then it needs some .... erm ..... work, I guess.  If you are at work then perhaps you should not be posting on a forum when you should be working?

Which is precisely the point I have been making which you appear unable to understand, even though you are saying exactly the same thing.

There is no evidence (unlikely to be is an incorrect description).

There are allegedly some documents that are withheld, which may or may not contain evidence indicating Jeremy to be innocent.

Nobody has seen the withheld files.

Therefore, there is no reason to assume that they may contain evidence indicating Jeremys innocence, it is clutching at straws.

In fact the evidence which is available shows Jeremy to be guilty, so it is illogical to dismiss that based on something which might not even exist.

[Jackiepreece]

Well that's exactly the point. What you are referring to as key evidence which contradicts the case put forward by the prosecution, actually is nothing of the kind, as has been assessed by the CCRC with their preliminary decision. Whether that preliminary decision changes or not we will find out soon.

I think even the staunchest of Jeremys supporters would admit that there is no evidence that he is innocent. Yes there is a lot of speculation and theories, but there is no definitive evidence. (Or at least none which has been presented as such on this forum).

I do not see it as a valid argument to say that withheld evidence must show Jeremy to be innocent, simply because it's been withheld. The reason for this is immediately obvious and apparent by the simple fact that documents which have been released, have not indicated that Jeremy is innocent.



Hartley the point is most of us on the forum are waiting to see the evidence that jb is guilty


A full life tariff on CIRCUMSTANCIAL evidence

Ridiculous

I am equally stunned that others are happy to just assume that there is something yet to be seen which shows Jeremy to be innocent.

[Hartley]

Well unfortunately that isn't even up for debate, he has been found guilty, even if the prosecution wanted to, they could not introduce new evidence against Jeremy unless it directly related to a ground of appeal put forward by the defence.

[grahameb]

I have no idea, maybe costs, maybe legitimate PII reasons, such as the mortuary photographs which were accompanied by many conditions which are designed to stop them from making their way into the public domain.

As the disclosed evidence has not indicated that there is a big conspiracy, I very much doubt that that is the reason.

To have not even the slightest idea why something has been withheld, yet simply decide that it was part of some grand conspiracy, is illogical in the extreme. In my opinion.

But aren't you the least bit curious as to why they make so much fuss about it. Or that an innocent man may be in prison and one of the family as well? If Jeremy was my family I would be very irate that not everything was revealed that should have been revealed. Aren't the family troubled ay all that a member of their own may be wrongly convicted? If there is no conspiracy therefore, then why do the police carry on in such a way as to make people think they have got something to hide?

[Buddy]

Even though I asked roch for an explanation its a relative non-point to me, but thanks for your input and grown up stance 

Lighten up a bit Nick,

[Hartley]

But aren't you the least bit curious as to why make so much fuss about it. Or that an innocent man may be in prison and one of the family as well? If Jeremy was my family I would be very irate that not everything was revealed that should have been revealed. Aren't the family troubled ay all that a member of their own may be wrongly convicted?

No, nothing indicates that he may be innocent, quite the opposite (including his actions against members of the family since his conviction).

[Buddy]

No, nothing indicates that he may be innocent, quite the opposite (including his actions against members of the family since his conviction).

Now that is a laugh Hartley.

[grahameb]

No, nothing indicates that he may be innocent, quite the opposite (including his actions against members of the family since his conviction).

So the family have completely washed their hands of one of their own members then? Because lets face it, it was they who hounded the police about Jeremy being guilty wasn't it? So obviously there was no love for him in the first place it seems? I wonder. If it had been Ann's brother who found himself in a similar situation. Do you think they would be equally as enthusiastic and anxious to find evidence against him? Just a thought?
For in my own family I cannot imagine myself to be that industrious in my hunt in evidence against them as were the close relatives of Jeremy? Or would you think that the fact that he was adopted and therefore a "cuckoo" in the nest so to speak that made them so ready to accuse him of this crime? This remember was a long time before Mugford came forward. Ann's doubts came just a couple of days after the crime. I wonder why she didn't think of another person other than Jeremy could have done it? But she immediately thought of Jeremy as being the culprit. I wonder why.

[grahameb]

Hartley you are mad!!!!! and I wish you knew what I know

I am saving the best for last

You wait and see

I am not kidding either

Now now Jackie. You are bordering on the edge here.

[mike tesko]

There is clear evidence that marks on the aga surround were deliberately made on 11th September 1985, and that a silencer which was used to make those additional marks, did not get sent to the lab' to be checked for blood and fibres, until 20th September 1985 - a presence of this paint from the aga on the silencer was used to secure the convictions for these murders...

Jeremy is only convicted of the murders by verdict of a jury based on false evidence, it does not mean that he killed anyone, it only means he is convicted, in the same way that those who are found not guilty, could have committed the crimes they were found not guilty of?

What matters is the quality of the evidence used by the prosecution to secure the convictions, convictions would only be valid if the evidence used was above suspicion, and not dodgy ...

[Buddy]

No, nothing indicates that he may be innocent, quite the opposite (including his actions against members of the family since his conviction).

And why should he not be Hartley?
The family had seen to it that he was to spend the rest of his life in gaol.
They were not happy with the guilty verdict, but wanted more. Sad thing is they got it.
Please do not insult my intellegence by suggesting the family were heart broken.
The deaths saved their arses, and you know it.

[Hartley]

So the family have completely washed their hands of one of their own members then? Because lets face it, it was they who hounded the police about Jeremy being guilty wasn't it? So obviously there was no love for him in the first place it seems? I wonder. If it had been Ann's brother who found himself in a similar situation. Do you think they would be equally as enthusiastic and anxious to find evidence against him? Just a thought?
For in my own family I cannot imagine myself to be that industrious in my hunt in evidence against them as were the close relatives of Jeremy? Or would you think that the fact that he was adopted and therefore a "cuckoo" in the nest so to speak that made them so ready to accuse him of this crime? This remember was a long time before Mugford came forward. Ann's doubts came just a couple of days after the crime. I wonder why she didn't think of another person other than Jeremy could have done it? But she immediately thought of Jeremy as being the culprit. I wonder why.

I think it was the murder of five family members that really did it.