Surely The Timings Are Incorrect?

[Caroline]

Total respect Caroline for not showing the rest of that very personal letter with you and Jeremy.

Thanks Justice - simply used it to prove a point. Why she thinks I would use a false name to write to Jeremy I have no idea. I initially used the email service simply to send him best wishes after watching CTSB. I had no idea he would get my personal details and was a bit shocked when he replied. However, you have to supply you name and address when you write to a prisoner. If she still thinks I'm Keira, she should report me - I would love to see the look on her face when she gets charged for wasting police time and when the penny finally drops that she was wrong allllllllllllllllll this time - sweet!!  .

[Jane]

Don't like to say too much April my Susie might get jealous?

I'm very discreet, Justice

[mike tesko]

The contents of phone log 3.26am, were not known to the defence at the time of the trial, only the time was mentioned...

In order for the full contents of phone log 3.26am to be introduced into evidence, it would have required submission of legal argument because, if the caller to the police had really been Jeremy, what is recorded there was told to the author, by someone who recieved a massage from Jeremy, about what the father had said to Jeremy - which amounts to a clear case of HEARSAY...

On the other hand, if Ralph made the call (3.26am), the contents of phone log 3.26am provide Jeremy with the perfect ALIBI...

[susan]

Justice your susie would get jealous I am tracking you across the forum and keeping a close eye on you.  Don Juan will become your new username 

[mike tesko]

The contents of phone log 3.26am, were not known to the defence at the time of the trial, only the time was mentioned...

In order for the full contents of phone log 3.26am to be introduced into evidence, it would have required submission of legal argument because, if the caller to the police had really been Jeremy, what is recorded there was told to the author, by someone who recieved a massage from Jeremy, about what the father had said to Jeremy - which amounts to a clear case of HEARSAY...

On the other hand, if Ralph made the call (3.26am), the contents of phone log 3.26am provide Jeremy with the perfect ALIBI...

prosecution couldn't run the risk of disclosing the full contents of phone log 3.26am, because the case against Jeremy could well have collapsed after disclosure...

[mike tesko]

Whether the contents of phone log 3.26am, amount to HEARSAY, or provided Jeremy with an ALIBI, one thing is certain, and that is that there were no submissions or legal arguments made during the course of the trial, which beggars belief if the contents if the 3.26am lig had been disclosed, or were known about at that time...

[Caroline]

Whether the contents of phone log 3.26am, amount to HEARSAY, or provided Jeremy with an ALIBI, one thing is certain, and that is that there were no submissions or legal arguments made during the course of the trial, which beggars belief if the contents if the 3.26am lig had been disclosed, or were known about at that time...

Jeremy's own campaign site state that the 03:26 log was the log the jury saw.

[Reader]

Only the jurors know what they saw. The best anyone else could conceivably know is what documents were made available to the jury.

[Caroline]

Only the jurors know what they saw. The best anyone else could conceivably know is what documents were made available to the jury.

That's not true court officials , the defense, the prosecution and the judge will know what they saw. You're arguing against Jeremy's own version to make the pieces fit. 

[Reader]

The jurors deliberate in private, so unless they submit a comment or question about a particular document available to them, nobody else knows whether they've seen it.

The CT website is sometimes inaccurate.

[Caroline]

The jurors deliberate in private, so unless they submit a comment or question about a particular document available to them, nobody else knows whether they've seen it.

The CT website is sometimes inaccurate.

You seem to be in denial because it doesn't fit with the conspiracy. On an issue such as this, I'm sure they know exactly which log was shown to the jury - Bonnet's log.

[Reader]

Documents aren't "shown to the jury". They are passed to the jury, and then the jurors decide what they will do with them.

[Caroline]

Documents aren't "shown to the jury". They are passed to the jury, and then the jurors decide what they will do with them.

You seem intent on making a conspiracy out of an issue which is clearly stated on the OS. Don't know what to tell you 

[Jane]

Documents aren't "shown to the jury". They are passed to the jury, and then the jurors decide what they will do with them.

Reader, please forgive me, but having read what you've been saying over the past 24 (ish) hours, it occurs to me that the bottom of the barrel that you're scraping could be getting precariously thin

[Caroline]

Reader, please forgive me, but having read what you've been saying over the past 24 (ish) hours, it occurs to me that the bottom of the barrel that you're scraping could be getting precariously thin

Dear Lyla, dear Lyla