Jeremys second phone call to Julie:

[Adam]

Julie mentioned the caravan break in because it involved Jeremy. It also involved his family who were massacred a few months later. It also implicated Julie.

Susans cheque book fraud was nothing to do with anything.

[Jane]

Yes. The defence mentioned it at trial.

Susan went to the police after Julie had finished her WS. Julie also admitted the fraud using Susan's cheque book a month after her WS had been completed.

I suspect both people felt if they were going to be involved in a major trial, they should be honest about their previous minor crime. Julie had already been honest, mentioning the caravan break in.

Being honest would have been not committing the crime in the first place, NOT as you admit, only owning up to it because they were going to be involved in a major trial.

[Adam]

Being honest would have been not committing the crime in the first place, NOT as you admit, only owning up to it because they were going to be involved in a major trial.

Ok. Both Julie and Jeremy lied under oath. They had both committed crimes previously so are not honest.

Guess we have to go on the other witnesses & evidence.

[Jane]

Ok. Both Julie and Jeremy lied under oath. They had both committed crimes previously so are not honest.

Guess we have to go on the other witnesses & evidence.

Which brings us very neatly back to the point that the evidence, the WHOLE evidence and (in places) NOTHING of the evidence was put to the jury. For me, this isn 't so much about whether Jeremy is guilty or innocent, it's more about the fairness, or not, of his trial.

[Adam]

Which brings us very neatly back to the point that the evidence, the WHOLE evidence and (in places) NOTHING of the evidence was put to the jury. For me, this isn 't so much about whether Jeremy is guilty or innocent, it's more about the fairness, or not, of his trial.

I created a thread on the trial fairness. Did not get much evidence of what was unfair or held back.

There was a mountain of circumstantial evidence. Together with the forensic evidence - silencer, Sheilas body condition. Together with other witnesses.

[grahameb]

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=289.0

Seems like it was a joint decision. Encouraged by Jeremy. Susan a willing participant & using her own cheque book.

Both Julie & Susan admitting to it, apoloising to the bank manager & paying the money back.

The main issue is the police had nothing to blackmail Julie with,  to create a false WS & diary after she first went to visit them.

Oh I can just imagine the Nuremberg trial after the 2nd world war. "But it was all Hitler's idea. We are completely innocent and honest people". But it didn't save them. Come on she can't really play the innocent card on this one. Everybody must bear his/her own sins.

[grahameb]

Ok. Both Julie and Jeremy lied under oath. They had both committed crimes previously so are not honest.

Guess we have to go on the other witnesses & evidence.

So you could use the same argument with regard to Jeremy as well. What has the break in at the caravan site got to do with this case?

[grahameb]

I created a thread on the trial fairness. Did not get much evidence of what was unfair or held back.

There was a mountain of circumstantial evidence. Together with the forensic evidence - silencer, Sheilas body condition. Together with other witnesses.

You were given the evidence of how unfair the trial was. You just didn't believe it. But you did get answers.

[Neil]

Ok. Both Julie and Jeremy lied under oath. They had both committed crimes previously so are not honest.

Guess we have to go on the other witnesses & evidence.

Well, you got there in the end. 

[Adam]

So you could use the same argument with regard to Jeremy as well. What has the break in at the caravan site got to do with this case?

It was a crime committed by Jeremy against his family.

It involved both the suspect & the main witness.

It was followed by a further crime against Jeremys family. By Jeremy.

Jeremy trusted Julie enough to  include Julie in his caravan break in. Would he trust her enough to ring her at 3.00am ?

[lookout]

Of course,,because she was his " partner in crime ",,wasn't she ??

[Adam]

You were given the evidence of how unfair the trial was. You just didn't believe it. But you did get answers.

I will read the thread again as I do not remember anything.

[Jane]

It was a crime committed by Jeremy against his family.

It involved both the suspect & the main witness.

It was followed by a further crime against Jeremys family. By Jeremy.

Jeremy trusted Julie enough to  include Julie in his caravan break in. Would he trust her enough to ring her at 3.00am ?

So perhaps he recognized that having established her criminal capabilities with fraud using someone else's cheque book, she wouldn't be too squeamish about doing a tiny robbery on an establishment that Jeremy had shares in anyway.

[Jan]

It was a crime committed by Jeremy against his family.

It involved both the suspect & the main witness.

It was followed by a further crime against Jeremys family. By Jeremy.

Jeremy trusted Julie enough to  include Julie in his caravan break in. Would he trust her enough to ring her at 3.00am ?

Not 3am
Does not make him a murderer

[Adam]

So perhaps he recognized that having established her criminal capabilities with fraud using someone else's cheque book, she wouldn't be too squeamish about doing a tiny robbery on an establishment that Jeremy had shares in anyway.

Perhaps.

After telling Julie & anyone else who would listen how much he hated his family , he may have thought Julie would understand. Which helps explain the 3.00am call.