The caravan break in. A taste for money, a taste to massacre ?

[Adam]

Adam I can  not believe your posts. Grahame has always made his stance extremely clear as are his feelings about Jeremy.  Do you not read his posts? He is here because he believes there was a MOJ.  This may mean that Jeremy is innocent, but he has never defended his character. If I have understood this I can  not see you have not?

A MOJ.  So he is a Jeremy supporter. A hardcore one to. Nothing to be ashamed of.

I will find my thread -'Was the 1986 trial unfair'.

[Adam]

The jury didn't know the half of it. Though if any of them glance on this forum,they'll know now !

What didn't the jury know from the 19 day trial ?

Why didn't his defence bring it up ?

[lookout]

What didn't the jury know from the 19 day trial ?

Why didn't his defence bring it up ?

Because they didn't know,,as so much was withheld at trial. I've said before that the defence were working with one arm tied behind their backs.

[Adam]

What didn't they know ?

Why didn't they find out ?

They had the best witness - Jeremy.

[Jane]

What didn't they know ?

Why didn't they find out ?

They had the best witness - Jeremy.

Any witness is only ever as good as they're allowed to be by the person asking them the questions.

[Adam]

Any witness is only ever as good as they're allowed to be by the person asking them the questions.

Thought Jeremy would be pro active. He has been pro active enough since conviction.

[Jane]

Thought Jeremy would be pro active. He has been pro active enough since conviction.

I believe witnesses are instructed only to answer questions they're asked, resulting, I imagine in the innocent staying within the boundaries in case they're found guilty and the guilty doing the same in case they're found out. Purely speculative as I've never been in court.

[Adam]

I believe witnesses are instructed only to answer questions they're asked, resulting, I imagine in the innocent staying within the boundaries in case they're found guilty and the guilty doing the same in case they're found out. Purely speculative as I've never been in court.

No I meant tell his defence before the trial. So the defence can get a 'not guilty' verdict.

[Jane]

No I meant tell his defence before the trial. So the defence can get a 'not guilty' verdict.

Not something I can answer but I'm having lunch next week with a friend who's a magistrate. She will probably know more about it than I.

[Jan]

What didn't the jury know from the 19 day trial ?

Why didn't his defence bring it up ?

as you well know I posted a whole list of evidence that was kept from the defence team at tthe original trial.

Secondly you should question yourself on how willing you are to use the break in to indicate it was a factor in proving Jeremy had the character to commit mass murder, but you refuse to accept Julies crimes as an indication of her character or ability just to tell lies.

[Adam]

as you well know I posted a whole list of evidence that was kept from the defence team at tthe original trial.

Secondly you should question yourself on how willing you are to use the break in to indicate it was a factor in proving Jeremy had the character to commit mass murder, but you refuse to accept Julies crimes as an indication of her character or ability just to tell lies.

I must have missed you're list.

Jeremy's crime was against his family. Julie told the police about it.

Susan Battersby's minor cheque book fraud in 1984 was immature teenagers. So I do not see why see should lead to committing such serious perjury.

[Jane]

I must have missed you're list.

Jeremy's crime was against his family. Julie told the police about it.

Susan Battersby's minor cheque book fraud in 1984 was immature teenagers. So I do not see why see should lead to committing such serious perjury.

And it sounds as if you may not know that £700 ish amounted to a months salary. Julie FORGED her friend's signature and DEFRAUDED the bank. If you believe that robbing his family, of what was PARTLY his anyway, shows a propensity for crime in Jeremy, why does it not occur to you that a crime that was entirely Julie's idea, doesn't show the same propensity. At the very least it shows a capability of deviousness which, naturally, makes me question what she later said of Jeremy, yet YOU dismiss it as the work of "immature teenagers." I believe she may have been 20................and a deviously clever 20, at that. 

[Adam]

It was for £634.00.

Julie was 50 this month. So it depends which month Susan Battersby's 1984 minor cheque book fraud was.

[Jane]

It was for £634.00.

Julie was 50 this month. So it depends which month Susan Battersby's 1984 minor cheque book fraud was.

I wonder why it bothers you so much that the crime and the idea for it was Julie's. £158.50 per week is what most paid living expenses from; rent, mortgage, food, utilities, recreation. It bothers ME that she did it for fun and HAD she been caught there was nothing to link her to the crime. Pretty devious, that. Some friend, eh.

[Jan]

I wonder why it bothers you so much that the crime and the idea for it was Julie's. £158.50 per week is what most paid living expenses from; rent, mortgage, food, utilities, recreation. It bothers ME that she did it for fun and HAD she been caught there was nothing to link her to the crime. Pretty devious, that. Some friend, eh.

 

is it not strange that Adam keeps repeating the same untruths over and over again. He knows the facts about who's idea the cheque book fraud was and yet cannot even admit it to himself.