Daisy

[lookout]

YOU'RE the most biased poster on the TWO forums. You even argue against your own As well as ALL the professionals whose names are also included on both forums within the files/documents of the case.

[Patti]

I was aware of Daisy wanting to post this.  Though I disagree with what she has done, I must add, in her defence, she meant no malice whatsoever.

Daisy is a dear lady....'old school', is the best way to describe her.  She has an incredibly close family, including a most loving and supportive husband.  The entire family where supportive of Daisy's desire to support a man with no family, who she felt was alone and in need of some genuine moral support, with no ties or complications.  Her friendship with Jeremy was purely that.  Unconditional.

She may have some wealth behind her and maybe Jeremy thought that Daisy's friendship may be of some serious use at a later date.  Daisy was aware of this, however, she did not want to believe she was there solely for the money.  She refused to think ill of Jeremy, even though her family had pointed out  how he mentioned 'her' money to both her and the Campaign team on a few occasions.

What happened on 'that' particular visit was shocking to both Daisy and her husband....who was also with her.  She was, as one can imagine, deeply hurt by this.  Both she and her husband were upset by his actions that morning that a planned afternoon visit was cancelled by them.

Friendship, loyalty and family are at the core of the whole of Daisy's nearest and dearest.  I suppose all she wanted to do was help a vulnerable young man who found himself fighting for his life....and justice.
In that, she has committed no crime, her actions and support were genuine.

The way some of you have attacked Daisy and her postings, is without justification and wholly unnecessary.
Daisy is old enough almost to be his mother.....you have spitefully attacked a harmless lady who meant no harm, other than to warn others who may be in the same position as she was, to be wary of him.
I have known Jeremy for over 20 years.  Both his mental and emotional health have deteriorated (which is without judgement but a fact, due to his imprisonment and age).

Jeremy remains possibly one of the strongest men I have ever had the fortune to meet and I wish him no harm, ever.  Not everybody who has had a relationship with Jeremy has spoken about it either. 

Sadly, I do agree with Daisy on one point.  Like her I believe he is innocent, always have....however, Jeremy has become a political prisoner upon which his release would bring the whole judicial system to its knees.  It's not that he won't be released so much as he can't be released....and that is what Daisy meant also.

Having been through two Appeals with Jeremy, having had meetings with Euan Smith, having been fobbed off with him along with Jeremy whilst he was courted to the CCRC, as Commissioner leaves many unanswered questions.

Ask the right question and you may get the right answer.

Wishing you all a Happy New Year.   

I don't doubt this at all. Maybe I am gullible and I expect people to be honest and I think that in this case their might be some truth in what this Daisy has posted.

I'm just a little curious of why someone who has been close to Jeremy and offered to help him would go out of their way to join a forum a forum that was anti Jeremy.  I suppose we wont know Daisy's reasons for doing this.  The lady appeared to be quite upset that Jeremy had turned on her.  I can understand his desperation and frustration, but this goes beyond being desperate in my opinion.  Its plain rudeness.

[scipio_usmc]

I don't doubt this at all. Maybe I am gullible and I expect people to be honest and I think that in this case their might be some truth in what this Daisy has posted.

I'm just a little curious of why someone who has been close to Jeremy and offered to help him would go out of their way to join a forum a forum that was anti Jeremy.  I suppose we wont know Daisy's reasons for doing this.  The lady appeared to be quite upset that Jeremy had turned on her.  I can understand his desperation and frustration, but this goes beyond being desperate in my opinion.  Its plain rudeness.

She posted to warn people not to get suckered into giving him money.  Presumably someone reading it who still wanted to give him money would want to make sure they know what the money is going to be used for. 

[David1819]

Other Jeremy supporters have great distrust for police and see to doubt most convictions.  Such people want eyewitnesses to murders in order for a conviction to stand such people have unrealistic expectations.  There is no evidence of police planting evidence or doing anything wrong in this case beyond placing too much trust in Jeremy and thus not doing as effective of an initial investigation as they could have. Since there is no evidence of police wrongdoing in this case supporters can't raise any instead supporters constantly bring up cases where there was evidence of wrongdoing and the wrongdoing in hose cases is argued to suggest it happened in this case.

Police in the UK specially in the 70s and 80s early 90s where very corrupt. 

[maggie]

When people post unsupported opinions that are based solely on bias it is fair to point that out it isn't bullying.  It is also fair to point out the evidence that convicted Jeremy.  Lookout never debates that evidence she just resorts to her mantra that it isn't evidence and it doesn't prove anything. This dismissal is to avoid debating the evidence because the reality is she can't refute any of it.

Many Jeremy supporters resort to this.  Jeremy supporters have to date been unable to articulate a well reasoned rationale for believing Jeremy is innocent.  Anytime someone challenges a Jeremy supporter to articulate their position and support it with evidence and logic there is silence.  Caroline asked again last week but supporters don't want to discuss it.

I have been here long enough to piece together Lookout's position and it is the same position resorted to by a number of supporters.  That position is simple- the subjective belief that only a crazy person would kill, that Jeremy is not crazy and therefore that Sheila had to be the killer. The people who have such beliefs then cherry pick through the evidence to try to argue in support of what they choose to believe happened.  Since there is no ability to actually refute the evidence that proves Jeremy did it such evidence is either casually dismissed or ignored with the pretense it doesn't exist or pretense it was not evidence that proves anything.

Other Jeremy supporters have great distrust for police and see to doubt most convictions.  Such people want eyewitnesses to murders in order for a conviction to stand such people have unrealistic expectations.  There is no evidence of police planting evidence or doing anything wrong in this case beyond placing too much trust in Jeremy and thus not doing as effective of an initial investigation as they could have. Since there is no evidence of police wrongdoing in this case supporters can't raise any instead supporters constantly bring up cases where there was evidence of wrongdoing and the wrongdoing in hose cases is argued to suggest it happened in this case.

This thread is about Daisy's claims.  Daisy dared to attack Jeremy who for some reason lookout adores and it struck a nerve with her so she lashed out calling her a liar and so forth though lookout has no basis to judge.  Lookout and nugnug are criticizing those who believe Daisy because they don't want Jeremy put in a bad light. The entire heart of her defense of Jeremy is that he is good while Sheila was bad so she is guilty.  She is heavily invested and thus criticizes those who post evidence against Jeremy.  She never engages in a substantive debate of the key evidence.  She tries to silence the opposition by simply dismissing the evidence as opposed to debating it.

Anytime bias is pointed out it strikes a nerve.  Jeremy supporters don't like it pointed out that the foundation of the beliefs of a majority of supporters is the proposition that a bad, crazy person had to commit the murders and that Jeremy was not bad or crazy while Sheila was so she did it.  Most are embarrassed to admit this is the main reason they think Jeremy is innocent.  They don't want to admit that they made up their minds on this basis instead of evaluating the evidence in great detail.  The evidence is looked at by supporters with an eye to supporting what they chose to believe as opposed to evaluating the evidence in great detail and then basing their position from such.
 
Bias is one of the things that is fair to point out in any debate and exploring the motivations and positions of the other side is necessary in any debate.   

Thanks for that scipio.  The thing is, you are not in any way superior to anyone else on this forum.  Everyone's opinion is of equal value and just because you believe you have all the answers it doesn't give you the right to abuse whoever has a different opinion.  The forum is a place of debate and not a court of law ....  for goodness sake loosen up and allow others to express their opinions without having to run the gauntlet of being attacked by you every time they post.   

[Jan]

She posted to warn people not to get suckered into giving him money.  Presumably someone reading it who still wanted to give him money would want to make sure they know what the money is going to be used for.

The point was why do that on a forum where the majority think he is guilty and are no way going to give him the time of day let alone any money?

[maggie]

The point was why do that on a forum where the majority think he is guilty and are no way going to give him the time of day let alone any money?

I agree it is strange, jan.  Also there is no reason at all why anyone should believe anything written on a forum, we know anyone can write anything and claim it as fact. 
We have no idea who most people on the forum are in real life so it is surely naïve to completely believe anything posted without knowing more about the person involved.

[susan]

Jan I totally agree with the point you made nobody on Red would contribute to his Campaign I think Daisy should have come to Blue first the fact she went onto Red made many on here very suspicious and hence the hostility..

[scipio_usmc]

The point was why do that on a forum where the majority think he is guilty and are no way going to give him the time of day let alone any money?

Just because those who actually post on red now at this point largely think he is guilty doesn't mean that all do and doesn't mean there isn't traffic from people who think otherwise.  Mos who think he is guilty probably won't post but they still can read posts.  A small minority of people who view posts actually take time to post on a site.   

Maybe she thought Mike would delete it here.  Maybe she thought it would be drowned out by long attacks from people here so that the initial point would be lost.   

The speculation of why could be endless and is not very important.  When people feel swindled and conned they warn others not to fall into the same trap.  She obviously invested a lot in their relationship and thus it disturbed her to find out she meant nothing to him but a source of money. 

Consider the following different scenarios;

1) you contribute money to a charity that wound up being fraudulent
2) you contribute to a charity where you sponsor a child and exchange letters and photos with your "adopted" child and are develop an emotional attachment with the child writing he/she loves you and about personal things going on in his/her life.  You eventually find out it was a fraudulent charity and that there was no such child the whole things was made up and the letters were written by con artists.

While in either situation you would be annoyed at being taken in, the latter is much more disturbing because of the emotional investment.  In the latter situation people often will say it must be a mistake and need to be beaten over the head to realize it.

Daisy felt more like the latter situation and wanted to warn others not to become emotionally invested and to be careful about financially investing. 

You can see why she could expect being attacked here and possibly having the post deleted.

[nugnug]

The point was why do that on a forum where the majority think he is guilty and are no way going to give him the time of day let alone any money?

how many people ether forum are going to give him any money i doubt if its many

only a tiny few peole who were close to him allready and gow come hes only asked her for money how come nobody else has complained/

[Jane]

how many people ether forum are going to give him any money i doubt if its many

only a tiny few peole who were close to him allready and gow come hes only asked her for money how come nobody else has complained/

Are you saying she had no right to complain about, what she perceived to be, his cavalier treatment of her? She appears to have been generous enough to provide him with a monthly allowance which he was apparently free to spend as he wished.

[Caroline]

how many people ether forum are going to give him any money i doubt if its many

only a tiny few peole who were close to him allready and gow come hes only asked her for money how come nobody else has complained/

How do you know they haven't?

[Alias]

What did she think he was going to use the money for? Why was she giving him money in the first place? Sid she think she owned him because she gave him money?

[scipio_usmc]

YOU'RE the most biased poster on the TWO forums. You even argue against your own As well as ALL the professionals whose names are also included on both forums within the files/documents of the case.

Because I am not biased but rather objective I evaluate the evidence objectively and that requires pointing out when experts are wrong and making erroneous/baseless claims regardless of whether their opinions help Jeremy or hurt Jeremy. If I were biased against Jeremy then I would use erroneous claims that went against Jeremy. But since I am not I will refute claims that are false even if the claims went against Jeremy.

When one evaluates evidence on the basis of whether it helps or hurts Jeremy they are exhibiting bias.  When they evaluate evidence on the basis of whether it is objectively true they are being objective and not exhibiting bias.  You evaluate things based on whether they help or hurt Jeremy instead of objective criteria that is what demonstrates you are acting out of bias.

[Jane]

What did she think he was going to use the money for? Why was she giving him money in the first place? Sid she think she owned him because she gave him money?

Do you not believe, for one moment, that she did it out of the goodness of her heart? Might it JUST have been that she'd believed in him and felt that having no family to support him put him in a very lonely place?