I know.....but I can't remember what has been said two or 3 days ago. I can't see that Bews or Mayall could either and there are a lot of holes in those statements and could be cross examined to the point of being slightly exaggerated or misinterpretated.
The classic example is that it was reported that Jeremy was well dressed. He wore trainers, jeans, sweater and an open neck shirt with a blue short jacket. Hardly well dressed.
Anyway I am exhausted and off up the apples and pairs....
It was this morning not 2-3 days ago! Every single person who asked Jeremy is Sheila could use the weapons did so to find out if she posed a threat to them. They didn't just ask the question for idle chat. So they had reason to take note of the anser and remember it. The fact they all have the same acocunt and that he had a reason to want them to believe she had used the weapon before supports that he did in fact tell them what they attribute to him. All of them making the same msitake is not very credible.
In the meantime well dressed meant he had a lot of clothes on- so many that it would have taken him a while to get dressed. Rather unusual to be panicked about your family and take time to put on a lot more than just a shirt and jeans or short and shorts. Moreover it was aimed at supporting Julie's assertion that he told her he had never been to bed so he was fully dressed when he called her and police.
One last question. How do you know so much about the case? I never see you in the archives. Is it that you might be an old poster who has come back to haunt us? lol
Night Sciop... 
Do you mean you never see me posting material in the archives? I read extensively what is available in the archives. Some sections largely contain links to materials presented in other sections and thus merely act as in index. I don't have any material to post in the archives I am limited ot the mateirals provided by others. The statement sposted her and on the red forum were provided by others who had access to them.
My extensive knowledge is attributatel to actually reading the mateirals as well as the claims of all sides. If you want to understand the arguments of both sides you have to make the effort to try. I read the available evidence and then followed that evidence where it leads.
It's been many months now that I have been posting on red and then here. It's not as if I learned everything there is to know in one day. I learned things I did not know from other posters as well. I read Lomax's book but not too many others so don't know too much about what others assert.
The combination of an open mind, good memory, attention to detail and fact I read the documents more recently than most people here, who probably read them years ago, means I have a good handle on what is in the statements. I also can follow the legalese easier in the court decisions and from them can understand the issues easier so far as what each side argued and why claims were rejected.
I have only posted her under one name and only found out about this site after someone else suggested looking into this case earlier in the year. It was someone with a pro-Jeremy stance and I kept an open mind to Jeremy being innocent based on what sounde dliek serious allegations of impropriety. The allegations though didn't hold up to scrutiny the usual myths are the ones that were lobbed at me and after looking at everything I see no way Jeremy is inncoent. Too many lies and railroading from police would have to have occurred and there would be evidence to establish such if it had happened.
Minor things like typos and misrecording time on a log and other such things don't demonstrate rairoading. The moderator could only have been successfully doctored by the lab which also would have to have erased all evidence of blood being in the muzzle of the weapon. No evidence they did so or had a motive to do so has been found. In the meantime the blood was found early on and determined to be human. Police were notified of such on the 14th but they didn't have it type tested until September because they didn't appreciate the significance and thought the value was in fingerprints. If they planted the blood instead of wasting time on fingerprints they would have had the blood type tested and not bothered with fingerprints till later. That is the kind of stuff that shows it was not planted. There is no evidence to support them dcotoring evidence of Sheila being free of foreign blood or GSR either. Police thought she did it early on so quite clearly had no reaosn to hide evidence that supported their position. If the detials are looked at carefully nothing tha thelps Jeremy can be found.
That is why the appeals flopped, the defense found nothing to establish his innocence or any legal errors in the trial process warranting a new trial.
