Judges summing up : His main points.

[grahameb]

Both the prosecution & defence said it was Sheila's blood on the silencer.

Could Sheila really shoot herself with it on ? If so the pathologist said it was impossible for her to walk downstairs & then upstairs after the first shot ?

Perhaps it was. The only question is how did it get there?

[Jan]

just did that because I was bored - hate feeding trolls as well

waste of time -it wont even go in one ear and out of the other - I don't think he even has ears - just a big reflective screen round his brain  and a huge ego.

[Adam]

Adam I have got to the stage that I don't know what you have asked as you do ask the same thing time and time again.  What I would suggest you and steve get a forum of you own and have a blast. Go on Bednod with steve or whatever it is called.

My question was.

What specific points was Jeremy referring to in his first appeal ?

Jeremy's first appeal was on the grounds that the judges summing up was unfair.

[Jane]

just did that because I was bored - hate feeding trolls as well

waste of time -it wont even go in one ear and out of the other - I don't think he even has ears - just a big reflective screen round his brain  and a huge ego.

Think it's just programmed to repeat certain things and ignore certain questions.

[Adam]

Sorry.

The judge was openly biased ? That is a serious accusation. Which the appeal court dismissed.

[Jane]

Think it's just programmed to repeat certain things and ignore certain questions.

And maybe at certain times. I think response 93 was asked at the same time yesterday and worded in the same way.

[grahameb]

Sorry.

The judge was openly biased ? That is a serious accusation. Which the appeal court dismissed.

Like I said in my first post. After those summing up points even I would have voted Jeremy guilty. Does that say something about the judge being biased?

[Jan]

Think it's just programmed to repeat certain things and ignore certain questions.

 

[Adam]

Like I said in my first post. After those summing up points even I would have voted Jeremy guilty. Does that say something about the judge being biased?

Both Julies (& Susan's) cheque book fraud & Jeremy's caravan break in were mentioned in court.

The caravan break in looked worse. It was a crime Jeremy committed 'against' his family. He also stage managed the crime scene. Something the prosecution claim Jeremy did at WHF.

Julie told the police about the caravan break in. Jeremy was quite content for Neville not to report him.

As the judge said, he trusted Julie enough to help him commit a crime against his family....

[Adam]

Like I said in my first post. After those summing up points even I would have voted Jeremy guilty. Does that say something about the judge being biased?

What did the judge miss out. Or say that was incorrect  in you're opinion ?

It was 1986, he was summing up on the evidence given at the trial.
 

[Jan]

so my replies are no good so you move on to someone else. what a suprise

[Adam]

so my replies are no good so you move on to someone else. what a suprise

I did read you're replies.

The judge may have considered some of you're counter arguments but did not consider them strong enough to mention.

Some of the counter arguments have been brought up years later by Jeremy. Such as it not being Sheila's blood or the aga paint on the silencer.

What witnesses said Sheila could load a gun ?

[susan]

Adam  excuse me the arguments that it was not Sheila's blood in the silencer or the Aga paint on the silencer were not Jeremy's ideas.  You really need to do more reading before making rash statements like you do.  I think Mason Doyle's book will eliminate your so called biased theories.  I will be here to remind you

[grahameb]

Both Julies (& Susan's) cheque book fraud & Jeremy's caravan break in were mentioned in court.

The caravan break in looked worse. It was a crime Jeremy committed 'against' his family. He also stage managed the crime scene. Something the prosecution claim Jeremy did at WHF.

Julie told the police about the caravan break in. Jeremy was quite content for Neville not to report him.

As the judge said, he trusted Julie enough to help him commit a crime against his family....

If that was the case then if he is guilty he obviously didn't learn the lesson that she was not to be trusted? It was only mentioned in court because if the jury found out some other way then her testimony would have looked like a lie....Which it was of course.

[campion]

Will the REAL Adam please stand up?
#77 - Alledge, or ALLEGE ?

Susan Hi there, Re Post #84, Steve's spread betting forum is Bet/nod. Duhh Wood the REAL  Steve UK  please stand up?


         "THE TRUTH NEVER SLEEPS, EVER". - Mandy Rice Davies.