Daisy

[Alias]

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?

I have no idea. It was a lot of money.

[nugnug]

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.

no im posing a simple question  how come nobody else who supports him on here or used has ever complained about him asking for money.

people who do that sort of thing dont normally do it to just one person.

[Jane]

no im posing a simple question  how come nobody else who supports him on here or used has ever complained about him asking for money.

people who do that sort of thing dont normally do it to just one person.

Leaving Jeremy totally OUT of the equation, when ANY person does something another person finds unacceptable, some, for various reasons, ie, pride, humiliation, a desire to distance themselves, will keep it to themselves. Others are able to speak out.

[scipio_usmc]

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?

She gave him the money to use to pay for experts or other fees associated with his defense.  She had the right to make sure she felt the use was going to be for something productive as opposed to some pie in the sky thing.  The fact he refused to tell her what it was for could mean it was unrelated to his defense or could mean it was for some defense use she would not like.  We have no way to know what he wanted the money for since he would not tell her, unlike in the past where he told her what he wanted the money for.  He could have lied and used the money for something other than what he told her we can't be sure he did use it on what he said but he did give her a use which seemed plausible.

That he refused to tell her now was odd. Instead of telling her what he wanted it for he told her basically to get lost and that he had just been using her for her money. That means at that point he saw no more need/ability to fleece her and thus he had no more use for the relationship he considered a farce but that she thought was real.  He burned the bridge because for some reason he saw no more potential to use her in the future.  Maybe that is because he saw no more need to pay any experts and just needs only now for personal use. We have no way to know what he was thinking.   

[Jan]

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.

I don't think anyone said that at all?

[nugnug]

Leaving Jeremy totally OUT of the equation, when ANY person does something another person finds unacceptable, some, for various reasons, ie, pride, humiliation, a desire to distance themselves, will keep it to themselves. Others are able to speak out.

and 30 thrity years of supporters comeing and going this is the first time anybodys felt able to speak out and nobody else has spocken out since they did.

[Jan]

She gave him the money to use to pay for experts or other fees associated with his defense.  She had the right to make sure she felt the use was going to be for something productive as opposed to some pie in the sky thing.  The fact he refused to tell her what it was for could mean it was unrelated to his defense or could mean it was for some defense use she would not like.  We have no way to know what he wanted the money for since he would not tell her, unlike in the past where he told her what he wanted the money for.  He could have lied and used the money for something other than what he told her we can't be sure he did use it on what he said but he did give her a use which seemed plausible.

That he refused to tell her now was odd. Instead of telling her what he wanted it for he told her basically to get lost and that he had just been using her for her money. That means at that point he saw no more need/ability to fleece her and thus he had no more use for the relationship he considered a farce but that she thought was real.  He burned the bridge because for some reason he saw no more potential to use her in the future.  Maybe that is because he saw no more need to pay any experts and just needs only now for personal use. We have no way to know what he was thinking.

I am glad you put that bit on the end - otherwise it sounded as if you were carrying out a character assassination  on one persons point of view.

[Alias]

I am glad you put that bit on the end - otherwise it sounded as if you were carrying out a character assassination  on one persons point of view.

I find it unbelievable that people are so ready to jump to conclusion when they only know one side of the story. Bias anyone?

[Jane]

I don't think anyone said that at all?

Just clarifying. Nugs asked how come no one else complained who lent Jeremy money.

[David1819]

Just clarifying. Nugs asked how come no one else complained who lent Jeremy money.

Yeah this seems rather isolated. 

[Caroline]

no im posing a simple question  how come nobody else who supports him on here or used has ever complained about him asking for money.

people who do that sort of thing dont normally do it to just one person.

How many people here have actually visited him? Most just write letters, I doubt he would be stupid enough to just ask anyone. I think there are some, that even if he did ask, they wouldn't mention it.

[maggie]

How many people here have actually visited him? Most just write letters, I doubt he would be stupid enough to just ask anyone. I think there are some, that even if he did ask, they wouldn't mention it.

I am aware of various people who have given money to help pay for various tests. Whether they were asked or just offered I'm not sure.

[scipio_usmc]

I am aware of various people who have given money to help pay for various tests. Whether they were asked or just offered I'm not sure.

It makes little difference whether the intial time they were asked or offered.  The simple reality is when people need money they usually turn to someone who gave them money in the past.  She gave him money in the past so he was willing to ask her for the 4000. No doubt there are others who he approached because they had given in the past.

 

[maggie]

It makes little difference whether the intial time they were asked or offered.  The simple reality is when people need money they usually turn to someone who gave them money in the past.  She gave him money in the past so he was willing to ask her for the 4000. No doubt there are others who he approached because they had given in the past.

Not necessarily scipio, you are making assumptions .....  again.

[scipio_usmc]

Not necessarily scipio, you are making assumptions .....  again.

What isn't necessarily so?  She gave him money in the past.  The initial time she gave him money either he asked for the money or she volunteered it and he took it.  Those are the only 2 possibilities. Since then he periodically asked her for money including the 4000. She said he asked her for it.  It is pretty obvious that the reason why he asked her is because she had given him money in the past. It is obvious that she is the only person who had been giving him money and highly unlikely that she would be the only contributor he asked to give him additional money and never asked any of the other contributors for additional money.