Did Jeremy Make a Freudian Slip?

[Caroline]

Propaganda technique

I think you have things in perspective on this case, although you and Tyler both seem to follow the crowd on the Amanda Knox case.

What Caroline is doing is applying a propaganda technique, even if naively. When they talk about the mountain of evidence against Amanda Knox, it is just this kind of thing which they mean. Here are a few examples

The Mountain of evidence

Sollecito is known to have said, on seeing Meredith’s room after the murder, that nothing was stolen. The guilters see this as damning evidence that he took part in the murder because if he did not, so they say, he could not have known that nothing had been stolen.

Well, he said later that he just assumed that nothing had been stolen because valuables such as a laptop, which you would expect  a thief to have taken  were left there . So there is really nothing in that statement which is damning, yet the guilters never tire of using that as evidence, when it doesn’t really even make it as weak evidence never mind damning stuff.

Another example. When it was found that the door to Meredith Kercher’s room was locked, Amanda tried to reassure people saying that Meredith always locked her door, as if to suggest there was no need to worry. This is taken to be damning evidence of Knox’s guilt, because other residents contradicted her, saying that Meredith sometimes didn’t lock her door.

Why would Amanda say that Meredith always locked her door? Well, because it was Amanda the killer who locked the door! The truth is that Meredith did NOT always lock her door.

Here’s another example of evidence aimed at ignorant people.

Sion Jenkins

Sion Jenkins said that he went to the hardware store to buy white spirit. It turned out that the police found he already had some in the cupboard. That is supposed to be damning evidence that he pretended to go for white spirit after murdering Billie-Jo to give himself a false alibi.

He said that he just didn’t see it, because it was behind some other stuff at the back of the cupboard-a perfectly reasonable explanation, it would seem, but there is more. It turned out that when Jenkins reached the hardware store, he found that he had forgotten his money.

The argument of the prosecution was that it was virtually impossible that he could have made two such humdrum mistakes in the same day.

Damning Evidence!

He made the journey to give himself a false alibi, they said. He says that Billie-Jo was killed while he was away and that defence is supported by his two daughters who both say that Billie -Jo was alive when they left the house.

Now, which would a reasonably intelligent person consider to be the stronger evidence, the alibi or going for white spirit when he already had some?

Which is stronger, the evidence of the pathologists who say that Sheila can’t have been dead for more than two hours when the pictures were taken or the evidence that Jeremy knew how much money was in his father’s wallet?

Which carries more weight, science or popular opinion? The answer, of course, is popular opinion.

I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of this rubbish!! I have doubts - I put my doubts to the rest of the board, because I thought this was a forum for debate!! if you don't like it, don't read it but don't apply your conspiracy drivel to me. In a  nutshell - it's bollox!! So stick that in your 'propaganda machine' and suck it!!

[Nickos]

I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of this rubbish!! I have doubts - I put my doubts to the rest of the board, because I thought this was a forum for debate!! if you don't like it, don't read it but don't apply your conspiracy drivel to me. In a  nutshell - it's bollox!! So stick that in your 'propaganda machine' and suck it!!

Hi Caroline, I'd like to add a quick post to this thread that not only do I find your thread interesting (as one would expect), but  also to commend you for your brave stance in this respect. I hope those opposed to your thread do not think the guilters will all jump on the back of it as I for one will not be posting again for a while (I hope  ). All the best Nick

[lookout]

if he had of kiled his family that night and then looked in his dads wallet then surely he would of known the exact amount that was in there but he clearly doesnt he says bettween 400 and 500 meaning he clearly does not know.

Nugs,,when a young person sees a wad of notes,,the first number that's plucked out of the air,is £500,usually. There could well have been different denominations of notes which might not have been anywhere near the estimated amount. Even in a wad,,£500 in £50 pound notes wouldn't look a lot,,if you see what I mean.

[Martin]

I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of this rubbish!! I have doubts - I put my doubts to the rest of the board, because I thought this was a forum for debate!! if you don't like it, don't read it but don't apply your conspiracy drivel to me. In a  nutshell - it's bollox!! So stick that in your 'propaganda machine' and suck it!!

You are playing the prosecutor in highlighting such a flimsy piece of evidence.  You are overplaying it, just as they do. My point is that your mode of discourse is that of advocacy.

I could have said a prosecutor’s technique, instead of a propaganda technique. Those kind of arguments are typical ways in which a skilful prosecutor will try to persuade the jury, when he realises his case is weak.

 

[nugnug]

Nugs,,when a young person sees a wad of notes,,the first number that's plucked out of the air,is £500,usually. There could well have been different denominations of notes which might not have been anywhere near the estimated amount. Even in a wad,,£500 in £50 pound notes wouldn't look a lot,,if you see what I mean.

well when he reported the wallet missing they probely asked him to give a rough guess as how much was in there.

the fact he allowed for a diffrence of 100 pounds means he dident havee a clue how much was really in there.

[maggie]

I used to have some respect for your posts in the past - just lost that! I have no job to do, just an opinion which has changed because of research and correspondence with the man in question! Don't pretend to know my motives or anything else about me!

Hi Have been out all morning and only just seen these posts.  Caroline told me quite a time ago about her suspicions concerning the wallet.  I believe she has every right to have those suspicions and surely if we all blindly refuse to consider the evidence and think about others points of view then we are as naïve and foolish as many guilters like to say we are.

The forum had become very quiet with little serious and interesting debate so I suggested to Caroline that it may be the time to post her thoughts about the wallet as it would hopefully stimulate debate.  It's certainly done that!!!

Martin, I always enjoy your posts and find them interesting and informative but I must say on this occasion you are wrong, Caroline is simply stating her own thoughts which she has every right to do imo 

[lookout]

well when he reported the wallet missing they probely asked him to give a rough guess as how much was in there.

the fact he allowed for a diffrence of 100 pounds means he dident havee a clue how much was really in there.

Nugs,,do we know where the wallet was to start with,,before it was handed over ?

[nugnug]

it is known but i dont know it off the top of my head i think Carline does though

[Jane]

Martin, I've never seen you approach dyed in the wool guilters for some of their more bizarre theories in the same way you've attacked Caroline for voicing her doubts out loud. This point isn't something she's pulled out of a hat and I believe she has the right, as have all posters, to expect that it will be debated intelligently.

[nugnug]

if carline hadent of mentioned im sure someone else would of done eventully its best to debate it out in the open sooner rather later.

[lookout]

I can't understand that if Jeremy was the murderer,,why was the wallet left behind ? Particularly as he allegedly knew the value of its contents. If it was money he was after,,surely it wouldn't have been overlooked.

[lookout]

Nobody else would have known about it,would they ? I don't get it at all. First thing I'd have thought of.

[nugnug]

I can't understand that if Jeremy was the murderer,,why was the wallet left behind ? Particularly as he allegedly knew the value of its contents. If it was money he was after,,surely it wouldn't have been overlooked.

yes i mean surely he could of taken all the money and nobody would be any the wiser.

[lookout]

yes i mean surely he could of taken all the money and nobody would be any the wiser.

That's right,nugs. Along with whatever was in the safe too,,as money is usually kept there,,to avoid/evade tax.

[Alias]

I don´t find it that strange that Jeremy knew approximately what was in Nevill´s wallet. He was at the farm every day working, knowing the routines of his father and the running of the farm in detail.
He would very likely know when Nevill went to his bank the last time to get cash. People are creatures of habit, Nevill would probably take out the same amount every time he went to the bank - my guess is that this amount was 500 pounds, then Jeremy would be able to chance a guess as to what was in the wallet compared to the time between last visit to the bank and the murders.

I can´t see how Jeremy, who broke into the caravan park and took cash would look into his father´s wallet that night and NOT take any. Doesn´t ring plausible that he would have left such a large amount in the wallet (how much was in the wallet exactly btw?)

I CAN see that it is strange that he didn´t answer Caroline properly - or more correctly, in two versions.
Hasn´t Aunt Agatha said about Jeremy that he lies constantly? She still thinks he is innocent, some people are habitual liars, perhaps Jeremy is one of them.