the raid team enter whf 2 hours after daylight.

[scipio_usmc]

no someone who was there could of told her.

or she could of just made it up altogether.

The police who saw him puke are not the ones who interviewed her.  Moreover, he never denied the claim he puked.

[nugnug]

you yes but no doubt the police who interviewed him would of talked to the police who had been there.

[scipio_usmc]

you yes but no doubt the police who interviewed him would of talked to the police who had been there.

Police had not speaked to her since early August when she was firmly in Jeremy's corner.  There is no evidence at all they mentioned anything about him puking to her nor any reason they would.

Her claim about him telling her he forced himself to puke was included in her September 8 statement to police.  She met police on September 7-8 to draft that statement.  Police say she told them at this time that Jeremy told her he forced himself to puke.

So basically you are accusing police of telling her Jeremy puked and police making up the lie that he told her he forced himself to puke and for her to simply write it down.

There is nothing to suggest police made her lie about anything let alone something trivial like that.  You are so desperate to try to find a way to discount everything that implicates Jeremy that you go to ridiculous lengths to do so.

[grahameb]

How did Julie known Jeremy puked?  She was not there.  He had to have told her afterwards.  So her story that he told her about the puking incident had to be true because it is the only way she would have known about it.  Why would he have mentioned it later?  She said he told her that he stuck his fingers in his throat and forced himself to puke and put on a great act just like the good act she put on when he told her she should have been an actress.

WHy would he fake puking?  Becaase he was not actually upset but wanted police to think he was, that is the only reason to do such.  The motivation for this is self-evident no presumtion is required.

It is still presumtion on your part to say he faked it.

[nugnug]

Police had not speaked to her since early August when she was firmly in Jeremy's corner.  There is no evidence at all they mentioned anything about him puking to her nor any reason they would.

Her claim about him telling her he forced himself to puke was included in her September 8 statement to police.  She met police on September 7-8 to draft that statement.  Police say she told them at this time that Jeremy told her he forced himself to puke.

So basically you are accusing police of telling her Jeremy puked and police making up the lie that he told her he forced himself to puke and for her to simply write it down.

There is nothing to suggest police made her lie about anything let alone something trivial like that.  You are so desperate to try to find a way to discount everything that implicates Jeremy that you go to ridiculous lengths to do so.

yes feeding the witness thats exactly what i am accusing them.

its somthing thats done all the time in this country.

[scipio_usmc]

It is still presumtion on your part to say he faked it.

The evidence says he faked it.

Julie had no way to know he puked other than him telling her as she claims.

She spoke to police how Jeremy told her he forced his finger down his throat to make himself puke.   Police would have no reason to tell her he puked and ask her about such. She talked to them about what she knew. So unless police told her he puked and to agree to lie and say he told her he forced himself to puke then the only way she knew was from Jeremy.

The notion police told her to tell such a lie is ridiculous.

[scipio_usmc]

yes feeding the witness thats exactly what i am accusing them.

its somthing thats done all the time in this country.

Feeding a witness that he had puked and to tell her to lie and say he admitted to faking it is not credible.  You have no evidence to support such and it is not rational.

If we were to assume police can never be trusted, always lie and force all witnesses to lie without any evidence at all to prove it then no one could be convincted in the UK.  You are just demosntrating how absurd you are with this garbage and how your beliefs in his innocence are totally irrationally based.

[nugnug]

obviosly yuve never heard of Stefan kisko or colin stagg or the Birmingham 6.

obviosly your totaly ingnorant of how the police oprate in the uk.

[grahameb]

well that's hardly reliable evidence.

Exactly. But it gives biased people like scipio another opportunity to condemn Jeremy.

[grahameb]

obviosly yuve never heard of Stefan kisko or colin stagg or the Birmingham 6.

obviosly your totaly ingnorant of how the police oprate in the uk.

I don't trust them one inch personally.

[nugnug]

Exactly. But it gives biased people like scipio another opportunity to condemn Jeremy.

a policeman says it so it must be true how can an argument like that seriosly.

[scipio_usmc]

obviosly yuve never heard of Stefan kisko or colin stagg or the Birmingham 6.

obviosly your totaly ingnorant of how the police oprate in the uk.

I have indeed heard of such cases and there is evidence that established wrongdoing in each.  Convictions were not overturned on the simply claim we should not trust police but rather specific evidence establishing specific wrongdoing.

All you are doing is confirming my point that using your ridiculous standard virtually no one could be convicted and crime would jump as a result.   

[grahameb]

The evidence says he faked it.

Julie had no way to know he puked other than him telling her as she claims.

She spoke to police how Jeremy told her he forced his finger down his throat to make himself puke.   Police would have no reason to tell her he puked and ask her about such. She talked to them about what she knew. So unless police told her he puked and to agree to lie and say he told her he forced himself to puke then the only way she knew was from Jeremy.

The notion police told her to tell such a lie is ridiculous.

You mean that Mugford said he faked it?

[nugnug]

the same julie mugford who implicated a totally innocent man ie mathew macdonald.

the same jullie mugford who said jeremy strangled rats with his bare hands.

[grahameb]

the same julie mugford who implicated a totally innocent man ie mathew macdonald.

the same jullie mugford who said jeremy strangled rats with his bare hands.

I don't believe that. Even I would not try and catch a rat in order to strangle the thing. But of course some are free to believe such nonsence because it comes from Mugford.