Motive for murders - Jeremy versus the relatives...

[Adam]

The JURY didn't hear evidence that could have affected their verdict. For instance, the FACT that Vanezis CHANGED his initial written report from stating hands were bloodied - to not bloodied when Jeremy became a suspect. The FACT that RWB had the SAME blood group as Sheila. The FACT that the relatives DID have something to gain from Jeremy's conviction and the silencer should NEVER have been allowed as an exhibit. The list goes on and on!! At the very least, there should be a retrial!!

The jury did ask for more clarification of how one of the relatives would benefit financially from Jeremys conviction.

It is up to the defence to put reasonable doubt in the juries mind on the silencer. The silencer was tested again several years later. It was not mentioned in Jeremys first appeal which focused on the judge.

There have been re trials. At the Court of Appeal & CCRC.

[Jane]

The jury did ask for more clarification of how one of the relatives would benefit financially from Jeremys conviction.

It is up to the defence to put reasonable doubt in the juries mind on the silencer. The silencer was tested again several years later. It was not mentioned in Jeremys first appeal which focused on the judge.

There have been re trials. At the Court of Appeal & CCRC.

And the relative said he WOULDN'T benefit from Jeremy's conviction. He COULD be said to have lied. If the question put to him was "Will you benefit from.....................?" who is to say whether the question was asked of "You" (alone) singular OR "you" (family) plural.

There has NOT been a retrial.

[Adam]

And the relative said he WOULDN'T benefit from Jeremy's conviction. He COULD be said to have lied. If the question put to him was "Will you benefit from.....................?" who is to say whether the question was asked of "You" (alone) singular OR "you" (family) plural.

There has NOT been a retrial.

Appeals & CCRC hearings are as good as a retrial. Going over all the evidence & what happened at the court hearing.  An appeal court can free a convicted person.

[Caroline]

The jury did ask for more clarification of how one of the relatives would benefit financially from Jeremys conviction.

It is up to the defence to put reasonable doubt in the juries mind on the silencer. The silencer was tested again several years later. It was not mentioned in Jeremys first appeal which focused on the judge.

There have been re trials. At the Court of Appeal & CCRC.

A. they didn't get it
B.they didn't do it
C. There have been NO retrials - a retrial looks as ALL of the evidence again and appeal just looks at new evidence - you obviously don't know the difference!!

[Caroline]

Appeals & CCRC hearings are as good as a retrial. Going over all the evidence & what happened at the court hearing.  An appeal court can free a convicted person.

Yep, you don't know the difference 

[Adam]

Yep, you don't know the difference 

Retrials are rare. Sion Jenkins managed to get one. But not many others.

Trials are expensive & time consuming. Do not see why convicted people should have re trials. They can go to the CCRC or court of appeal. Where there are already hundreds of cases waiting to be heard.

[Caroline]

Retrials are rare. Sion Jenkins managed to get one. But not many others.

Trials are expensive & time consuming. Do not see why convicted people should have re trials. They can go to the CCRC or court of appeal. Where there are already hundreds of cases waiting to be heard.

That about says it all - so even if someone is genuinely innocent, you don't think they should have a retrial because it's 'expensive'. That's about what I would have expected from you. How much do you think it costs to keep someone in prison for their entire life? I'll give you a clue - a LOT more than the cost of a retrial!! You just don't think these things through do you?

[Jane]

Retrials are rare. Sion Jenkins managed to get one. But not many others.

Trials are expensive & time consuming. Do not see why convicted people should have re trials. They can go to the CCRC or court of appeal. Where there are already hundreds of cases waiting to be heard.

Retrials MAY be rare but it doesn't give YOU the right to say that CCRC and CoA are the same thing. THEY AREN'T.

[nugnug]

its intresting that even the police belived the phonecall happend even after jeremy became a suspect they only seem to have starte saying the phonecall when there hitman suspect was found to have a cast iron albi.

[Adam]

That about says it all - so even if someone is genuinely innocent, you don't think they should have a retrial because it's 'expensive'. That's about what I would have expected from you. How much do you think it costs to keep someone in prison for their entire life? I'll give you a clue - a LOT more than the cost of a retrial!! You just don't think these things through do you?

Who is innocent ?

[Caroline]

Who is innocent ?

I don't know, is he/she? Who is 'Who'?

[Adam]

Retrials MAY be rare but it doesn't give YOU the right to say that CCRC and CoA are the same thing. THEY AREN'T.

Jeremy will not get a retrial. The waiting list to have another CCRC hearing is years.

A Jeremy supporter on the red forum said he is going straight to the COA. Did not know he could queue jump. Or is this Jeremy's arrogance coming out again ?

[Caroline]

Jeremy will not get a retrial. The waiting list to have another CCRC hearing is years.

A Jeremy supporter on the red forum said he is going straight to the COA. Did not know he could queue jump. Or is this Jeremy's arrogance coming out again ?

Ask him!

[nugnug]

if theres over whelming new evidence than you can

[nugnug]

Jeremy will not get a retrial. The waiting list to have another CCRC hearing is years.

A Jeremy supporter on the red forum said he is going straight to the COA. Did not know he could queue jump. Or is this Jeremy's arrogance coming out again ?

theres no waiting list for a ccrc hearing

its down to the ccrc weather there is any new evidence that warrants a review.