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

[grahameb]

Even Jeremy's defence lawyers found her WS believable. Which is why they focused on the bank fraud.

She approached the police.

Up until now Adam I have accepted your word for this as I haven't been able to find it anywhere? But for want of a better expression could you please provide a "source"?

[susan]

Morning Adam

I have read this statement but cannot find a source could you provide one please. Thank you.

[susan]

Adam where's the source bet you don't have one

[Jan]

Adam

if it was such a minor crime in your eyes and you believe they told the police - why would they do that only because of this crime? There would be no reason would there? they would not have been on trial - so why confess at this particular time?

[Adam]

Adam where's the source bet you don't have one

You know I always provide a source.

Page 167 - Blood Relations, Roger Wilkes.

A critically acclaimed unbiased book.

[Adam]

'The lawyers went over her statement, line by line. Geoffrey Rivlin repeated the process personally'.

'Looking for the smallest loose brick that might be dislodged to bring the whole story crashing down'.

'But all her statements meshed convincingly, and her story undeniably resounded with a 'ring of truth'.

[susan]

Adam thank you I agree you do always provide a source 

[Adam]

I also believe her WS seems perfectly believable.

Several other people also testified how Jeremy did not like his immediate family.

What Julie & Jeremy did before and after the massacre must be true. They were often with other people or went to public places. So it can easily be checked.

[grahameb]

'The lawyers went over her statement, line by line. Geoffrey Rivlin repeated the process personally'.

'Looking for the smallest loose brick that might be dislodged to bring the whole story crashing down'.

'But all her statements meshed convincingly, and her story undeniably resounded with a 'ring of truth'.

Thank you Adam. I would like to know where he got this information though? Is he telling the story from his perspective, or from the defence's actual words? It just doesn't sound like something the defence lawyers would say? If they did say it, then it means that they were half convinced already that he was guilty? With defence lawyers like that who need a bill?

[Jan]

I also believe her WS seems perfectly believable.

Several other people also testified how Jeremy did not like his immediate family.

What Julie & Jeremy did before and after the massacre must be true. They were often with other people or went to public places. So it can easily be checked.

who were those witnesses?

There were others who said he had a normal family relationship.  Even Barbara said he was like a son to her.

[Adam]

who were those witnesses?

There were others who said he had a normal family relationship.  Even Barbara said he was like a son to her.

Mary Mugford.

Ann Eaton.

James Richards.

Dorothy Folkes.

Robert Boutflour.

Barbara Wilson.

[Adam]

Thank you Adam. I would like to know where he got this information though? Is he telling the story from his perspective, or from the defence's actual words? It just doesn't sound like something the defence lawyers would say? If they did say it, then it means that they were half convinced already that he was guilty? With defence lawyers like that who need a bill?

The introduction to the book, Wilkes says he interviewed everyone connected to the case. Including Jeremy, but not including Julie.

[lookout]

So did Scott Lomax,who also campaigned for Barry George and others of high-profile.
As did Claire Powell.

[Adam]

Lomax's book is very biased.

After reading about the case online, I looked for the least biased and best reviewed book. Then bought 'Blood Relations'.

[lookout]

Claire Powells' book is very biased towards Jeremys' guilt,,but at the same time,she doesn't wrap anything up about Sheilas' life-style.