0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I have never said that. Do not lie. Once, I said she was naturally quite pretty but looked slutty in the NOTW article.
The jury did not know about either NOTW verbal deals. They did not need to. Nothing had been signed. They would guess that both would have a deal after the verdict. It was a high profile case. The jury did know about Susan Battersby's 1984 minor cheque book fraud. The defence brought it up to try to discredit her.
No, I have always said that. Members here are my witnesses. You try to claim otherwise, but you are wrong.What has posting this picture got to do with my stance on the case?'Anyway, I just wrote that I am 99.9% sure that Julie was in on it if Jeremy is indeed guilty. I don´t feel bad posting this picture - she posed for it herself and got her pay.Thank you!(And what you say has not an iota to do with what I think about this case! I know you think you have turned other people, Caroline, April, Susan, they have to fend for themselves - you haven´t had any impact on me - just <-----Italics - posh..... ), my stance has never changed. It is the same as the very first day I heard about the case a few years back - before you were here.
how would they guess there human beings there not psycic.
Adam,I have been a member of the forum for a good few years. When I joined Alias was already here and she has ALWAYS been undecided re: Jeremy's guilt/innocence. I share the same stance,though I do believe Jeremy's case to be a MOJ. Hope that makes it clear for you.
Hello tyler yes I have always known Alias is torn between innocent and guilty and that is a very difficult place to be.
Common sense. There would have been camera's at court every day. It was a brutal massacre. Anyway I would use common sense. Not my psychic abilities.
so there supposed to guess by the fact theres camreas in the court that one of the has made a newspaper deal for 25k theres always camreas in court that doesnt mean anyones made a newspaper deal.