0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.
Mind you, it could explain why Rivlin didn't do his best at the trial?
Not good enough explanation Steve. He consistently referred to his parents as "his parents".
I've dealt with the relationship with Colin,and I don't want to pretend that Sheila was a well woman. As far as the monastery incident is concerned and the electrician it's strangers who frighten her in my view not family,and Sheila does not attempt to seriously harm either group in any way.
Of course he did in their company because he knew on which side his bread was buttered. But his true feelings came out to Julie and James Richards.
Why did not JM ever say anything nice about Jeremy, even though she had been with him for two years?
in it for the money champaigne pockets lugg
It seems Julie can't win either way. Maybe she was blindly in love with him and blinded to his faults,which would explain why they mutually stuck together for nearly two years.
Or she was furious that she was no longer special to him and had moved on...
Of course that's possible HMEssex,but don't you find those types are usually nihilistic pessimists who never ultimately make a success of their own lives? Give Julie credit for doing just that in the aftermath.
But don't you think it strange mertol. She professed that she loved him. But has absolutely nothing good to say about him whatsoever. To my mind that is very odd to say the least?
i dont see anything to point to she did love him, the so called love ended on the dumping, none of the images ive seen of her tell me she did not seen one photo yet of her happy,i dont think she did.
I can't get it out of my head that she only went to the police AFTER he dumped her. That is a fact. But that fact doesn't seem to register with the antis at all. There's two strange things about JM (1) She said nothing positive about Jeremy. But rather kept harping on about all the alledged evil he had done. (2) She only went to the police AFTER he dumped her. Two FACTS that you cannot get away from.