Julie's allegation of a hitman

[Lugg]

I can't really put it better than Harley has already, other than to reiterate the point that Julie did not say JB had in fact used a hitman, her evidence was that he told her he had. There's a big difference and as Hartley points out it's up to everyone to decide for themselves whether or not they believe her. To say that 'antis' are calling her a liar just shows that you don't understand the difference between evidence of what he did, and evidence of what he said he did.

Why then do you still choose to believe the rest of her testimony. Because it is all based upon what "SHE SAID" JB told her. Avery inconsistent opinion in my opinion. Which of course Is my own opinion. Not what hartley said, that is I am TELLING others what to believe. All I am saying is that what you believe is inconsistent, in that you still choose to believe some of JM's testimony and reject other things instead of saying outright that she is quite simply a liar. What 10 people of the jury voted has no bearing on the case whatsoever, as it is my contention that they were never in possession of ALL the facts. Simples.

[Lugg]

Julie was relating her life with Jeremy over a period of almost two years,warts and all. Looking at Jeremy's handwriting with that breathless intensity of someone who needs to be believed even when all the evidence is to the contrary even if it is hearsay,it's a desperate attempt to discredit Julie whom Jeremy would have kept onside had he had the slightest nous,yet was emboldened by his victory over the DCI Jones deception and kept digging himself in further from that initial victory.

Speculative TRIPE.

[-Harters-]

Concerning insults to others. It would be an insult if directed at one person. But it is also interesting that you never accuse Steve-uk of insulting behaviour when he has a go at "all" bamber "supporters". Bit one sided judgment on your part don't you think? Also you seems to think that Jeremy "told" JM  these things? Yet surely isn't it then yourself who is choosing to believe JM's testimony when it suits you? Even when you choose to discard it when it suits you? A bit inconsistent don't you think? There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that JB evey told JM any of those things she "said" he told her. None at all.

I don't recall Steve_UK having ever insulted me, either individually or as part of a group.
In actual fact, one could consider that I had actually mocked him by suggesting to Caroline that we swap him for Petey.

[Lugg]

I don't recall Steve_UK having ever insulted me, either individually or as part of a group.
In actual fact, one could consider that I had actually mocked him by suggesting to Caroline that we swap him for Petey.

Of course he never insulted you. He's on your side. But if you really what to see the persistent side swipes of Steve-uk towards bamber supporters. Then just do a search. I can't be bothered myself. Tell you what. Do a search on his posts if you don't want to be accused of being blinkered. Personally I just let these things go over my head because I simply cannot be bothed to note every time I get verbally abused. Whilst we are on the subject of abuse It has been reported to me that the abuse from the so called "red" forum towards bamber supporters has still not abated. How is this comically named "truce" coming along between the two forums?

[-Harters-]

Of course he never insulted you. He's on your side. But if you really what to see the persistent side swipes of Steve-uk towards bamber supporters. Then just do a search. I can't be bothered myself. Tell you what. Do a search on his posts if you don't want to be accused of being blinkered. Personally I just let these things go over my head because I simply cannot be bothed to note every time I get verbally abused. Whilst we are on the subject of abuse It has been reported to me that the abuse from the so called "red" forum towards bamber supporters has still not abated. How is this comically named "truce" coming along between the two forums?

Lugg, to me you simply appear aggressive and confrontational. I've already given my views and have no desire to become further embroiled in your complaints.

Good day to you sir.

[Lugg]

Lugg, to me you simply appear aggressive and confrontational. I've already given my views and have no desire to become further embroiled in your complaints.

Good day to you sir.

No one forced you to comment. Althought it is interesting that any argument that you can't win the person posting against your own opinion suddenly becomes an "aggressor". I'm not aggressive. I'm putting an argument. But if you can't handle it then good day to you too "sir".

[Steve_uk]

No one forced you to comment. Althought it is interesting that any argument that you can't win the person posting against your own opinion suddenly becomes an "aggressor". I'm not aggressive. I'm putting an argument. But if you can't handle it then good day to you too "sir".

Lugg your argument insofar as it goes is a valid one,that people have picked out from Julie's statement what they want to believe and when it does sound on less secure ground with the hitman story that people have somehow turned a blind eye and kept with it regardless.

Isn't this why we have juries in this country before which one can put the evidence and let people make up their own minds,however arduous a task this may be or however much deception it may involve. Quite evidently both Julie and Jeremy couldn't be telling the truth,which leads one to try and have their words backed up by other sources,and I put it to you on that basis that I would agree with the Defence's own view that Julie's statement "had a ring of truth about it",it's backed up by other witnesses and evidence in the case,and the whole idea that the trial was one monstrous conspiracy against Jeremy just does not hold water when you consider the background and the integrity of all those involved.

[Lugg]

Lugg your argument insofar as it goes is a valid one,that people have picked out from Julie's statement what they want to believe and when it does sound on less secure ground with the hitman story that people have somehow turned a blind eye and kept with it regardless.

Isn't this why we have juries in this country before which one can put the evidence and let people make up their own minds,however arduous a task this may be or however much deception it may involve. Quite evidently both Julie and Jeremy couldn't be telling the truth,which leads one to try and have their words backed up by other sources,and I put it to you on that basis that I would agree with the Defence's own view that Julie's statement "had a ring of truth about it",it's backed up by other witnesses and evidence in the case,and the whole idea that the trial was one monstrous conspiracy against Jeremy just does not hold water when you consider the background and the integrity of all those involved.

Agreed Steve. That is indeed so. But I was listening to Judge Geoffrey Robertson this morning and his experiences in a jury room. He said that one jurer even brought a oija board into the jury room to help him decide.  We must also remind ourselves that it was not a unanimous verdict. that two jury members voted not guilty. Are you also going to argue with them for voting not guilty?

[lookout]

Peter Hitchin wants to see a change in the jury service. He remarked on QT last Thursday that they should be picked on their intelligence and not randomly as is at present.

[Lugg]

Peter Hitchin wants to see a change in the jury service. He remarked on QT last Thursday that they should be picked on their intelligence and not randomly as is at present.

That is good as far it goes. But quite often the simple farm hand has more common sense that some of those educated at Eton.

[Steve_uk]

Agreed Steve. That is indeed so. But I was listening to Judge Geoffrey Robertson this morning and his experiences in a jury room. He said that one jurer even brought a oija board into the jury room to help him decide.  We must also remind ourselves that it was not a unanimous verdict. that two jury members voted not guilty. Are you also going to argue with them for voting not guilty?

But that's our system that a judge can settle for a majority verdict. There's quite often one person who likes to throw a spanner in the works as with the Ian Huntley jury;that's why we have this eventuality.

[Jane]

Lugg your argument insofar as it goes is a valid one,that people have picked out from Julie's statement what they want to believe and when it does sound on less secure ground with the hitman story that people have somehow turned a blind eye and kept with it regardless.

Isn't this why we have juries in this country before which one can put the evidence and let people make up their own minds,however arduous a task this may be or however much deception it may involve. Quite evidently both Julie and Jeremy couldn't be telling the truth,which leads one to try and have their words backed up by other sources,and I put it to you on that basis that I would agree with the Defence's own view that Julie's statement "had a ring of truth about it",it's backed up by other witnesses and evidence in the case,and the whole idea that the trial was one monstrous conspiracy against Jeremy just does not hold water when you consider the background and the integrity of all those involved.

Steve, it doesn't happen often, but I'm agreeing with most of what you are saying here. I'm not one of those who saw the trial as "one monstrous conspiracy", however, when I look at the evidence given by some of the witnesses, not only do I consider their "background and integrity," I also consider their agenda.

[Lugg]

Steve, it doesn't happen often, but I'm agreeing with most of what you are saying here. I'm not one of those who saw the trial as "one monstrous conspiracy", however, when I look at the evidence given by some of the witnesses, not only do I consider their "background and integrity," I also consider their agenda.

Plus the evidence that was not submitted of course.

[lookout]

That is good as far it goes. But quite often the simple farm hand has more common sense that some of those educated at Eton.

I agree with you there,Lugg,,,as common sense is in short supply to some academics.

[Bridget]

Why then do you still choose to believe the rest of her testimony. Because it is all based upon what "SHE SAID" JB told her. Avery inconsistent opinion in my opinion. Which of course Is my own opinion. Not what hartley said, that is I am TELLING others what to believe. All I am saying is that what you believe is inconsistent, in that you still choose to believe some of JM's testimony and reject other things instead of saying outright that she is quite simply a liar. What 10 people of the jury voted has no bearing on the case whatsoever, as it is my contention that they were never in possession of ALL the facts. Simples.

I don't reject any of her testimony, I believe that he told her he hired a hitman. It was a lie, but it was his lie not hers. Her evidence was as to the fact that he had voiced what may at the time have been fantasies about killing his family which in the end were fulfilled.