Being awake at 3.00am does not make Jeremy guilty:

[Adam]

Jeremy being awake at 3.00am does not make him guilty. In fact already being awake is more believable than his answering machine being switched off, & Neville waiting patiently for potentially several minutes for the phone to be answered.

When Jeremy rang Julie at 10am, he told her that she may be hearing from him later. This could be because Jeremy had some personal problems & was having difficulty sleeping. At 3.00am Jeremy could have been awake, feeling depressed & lonely. So decided to ring a woman he loved & who loved him. Neville's call coming a few minutes later.

In all the panic Jeremy told the police Nevilles call had woken him up. After becoming a suspect, he decided not to change this statement as it would look suspicious.

Four witnesses have said they were woken up between 2.00am - 3.00am. The times vary slightly but at that time they were not going to be awake with sychronised watches. There is no evidence they were 'bombed out of their skulls on drink & drugs' as another poster claims.

Julies diaries say she received the call at 3.00am. The diaries would not be discussed in court, only Julies Witness Statement. So there is no reason for one to be made up & back dated. The police probably viewed them to assist Julie with her Witness Statement & make sure she was telling the truth. The diaries were discovered over 20 years later & put online, along with hundreds of other documents. Surely Julie would sue if they were not hers.

Jeremy was  on the phone to the police for several minutes from 3.26, so could not have rang Julie at 3.30am.

Jeremy will never change his statement that Nevilles call woke him. But is it time for his supporters to say he may well have been awake at 3.00, but that does not make him guilty ?

[lookout]

So Julie,,who'd professed she'd loved this man,told him to go back to sleep,while she,herself turned over-----------completely unconcerned ! Jeremy would have wanted more reassurance than what he got,,and he'd have paid any taxi fare that was needed,,so would probably have expected her to at least have offered to give him some support,as there was nobody else he could have called on.
Jeremy had no idea what was happening at this stage,so he'd have experienced a certain amount of fear of the unknown,particularly as he'd sensed urgency in his fathers' voice.
I would have asked if he'd wanted me there with him,,and probably have gone there,regardless.It would have made a Hell of a difference if she had have gone. Though she was obviously not the comforting type to begin with,,except when she leapt into bed with him after the tragedy,thinking that she was about to be Lady Muck of the Manor.
Imagine sleeping with a " known murderer "!!! Having known for over a year what " his plans " were.

Strange how she didn't tell her husband about the tragedy until a while later ? I'd have thought that because she was so full of it to the newspapers here,that she'd have continued the trend,,so she wasn't even " straight-up " when she met her future husband. Why did she hold out ? Was it because she knew that it wasn't true that Jeremy had murdered his family ? Or was it the £25,000 that she could have to pay back ? Otherwise,it would have been the first news to roll off her tongue.As well as the fact that she could even have gone to the press in Canada with a cock and bull story that " she's had to escape because of fear in case he's ever released ",,knowing that the majority would show pity and sympathy for her. It seemed to have been kept pretty low-key there ?

Were you also aware that it was only Stan Jones who'd believed that Jeremy was the murderer ? He went right over the head of his then superior," Taff " Jones ( who'd had 30 odd years service and 10 commendments under his belt ) who was cast aside like an old rag,,making way for " Clouseau " who bungled his way through utter mayhem.

I will end by saying that Julie and Jeremy had BOTH been described as " unpleasant characters ". So there was as much vilification towards Julie,as there was against Jeremy,so there was no positive feedback forthcoming for her. More so against JM now as so many people have seen the light,and nobody likes liars or schemers.

[Adam]

We are going over old ground.

My simple questions are

Is it better to accept Jeremy was awake at 3.00am ?

Does that mean he could still be innocent ?

[lookout]

We are going over old ground.

My simple questions are

Is it better to accept Jeremy was awake at 3.00am ?

Does that mean he could still be innocent ?

Old ground ? Isn't that what you usually do in forming OLD Threads ? Jeremy IS innocent as far as I'm concerned.

[Adam]

Old ground ? Isn't that what you usually do in forming OLD Threads ? Jeremy IS innocent as far as I'm concerned.

Jeremy cannot say he was awake at 3.00am. Although the evidence contradicting this is damaging.

However if his supporters accept he was awake at 3.00am, it means there is another version of events which could show his innocence. A more plausible version in my view.

[grahameb]

We are going over old ground.

My simple questions are

Is it better to accept Jeremy was awake at 3.00am ?

Does that mean he could still be innocent ?

It's all old ground Adam.

[Adam]

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3745.0


Interesting article about Jeremys 3.00am call to Julie.

This thread has not got a big response. Surely people are not still clinging to the idea that Jeremy phoned Julie after the police.

[wilf]

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3745.0


Interesting article about Jeremys 3.00am call to Julie.

This thread has not got a big response. Surely people are not still clinging to the idea that Jeremy phoned Julie after the police.

yes iI think so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! reasons I've stated before

[Adam]

yes iI think so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! reasons I've stated before

You think so what ?

[Caroline]

We are going over old ground.

My simple questions are

Is it better to accept Jeremy was awake at 3.00am ?

Does that mean he could still be innocent ?

Why? Because you say so? He might have been OR he might not have been. If he were guilty, he certainly would have been which is where you want this whole point to lead eventually lead. No doubt on the premise of if he was awake, why lie? However, only he knows the answer to that so there is little to debate on that score - other than to say maybe, maybe not.

[Jane]

Why? Because you say so? He might have been OR he might not have been. If he were guilty, he certainly would have been which is where you want this whole point to eventually lead. No doubt on the premise of if he was awake, why lie? However, only he knows the answer to that so there is little to debate on that score - other than to say maybe, maybe not.

Which says how it is for just about every point Adam puts forward, eg, Nevill would NEVER..............How the hell does Adam know? Jeremy would/wouldn't...................How the hell does Adam know? What WE know, however, is that Adam exhibits ZERO knowledge of how people act when under any kind of emotional stress.

[Caroline]

Which says how it is for just about every point Adam puts forward, eg, Nevill would NEVER..............How the hell does Adam know? Jeremy would/wouldn't...................How the hell does Adam know? What WE know, however, is that Adam exhibits ZERO knowledge of how people act when under any kind of emotional stress.

He still refuses to debate the tangible evidence - wonder why? Because he can't?

[Jane]

He still refuses to debate the tangible evidence - wonder why? Because he can't?

Er, coz he doesn't know what tangible means?

[lookout]

Do you think he'll know what mitigation is ? 

[Adam]

Which says how it is for just about every point Adam puts forward, eg, Nevill would NEVER..............How the hell does Adam know? Jeremy would/wouldn't...................How the hell does Adam know? What WE know, however, is that Adam exhibits ZERO knowledge of how people act when under any kind of emotional stress.

Neville would never what  ?

I