Sheila not fighting back. Why ?

[scipio_usmc]

Julie´s lies! She is incredible!!!
The cheque book fraud was her idea alone, she says  that, BUT she did it to impress Jeremy, so it´s really his fault.
This is Julie in a nutshell!

What did she lie about?  his is a perfect example of you own bias against her because you are a Jeremy supporter though you refuse to admit it.

Let's review she told them that she wanted to impress him that she could do something bad so she came up with the check fraud to impress him.  What did she lie about and what evidence do you have that she lied?

What you object to is not what she said but the characterization by the prosecutor that Jeremy corrupted her.  The prosecutor IN PART said he corrupted her by encouraging her to be bad and that she came up this idea in order to show him she could be bad.  He also said she was corrupted by him taking her with him to steal from the Caravan site and to help him sell drugs. 

There is no contradiction in saying she came up with the idea herself but did so in order to demonstrate to Jeremy that she could be bad like him.  There is nothing wrong with how the prosecutor interpreted such.

If you have proof she lied about doing it in order to impress him then bring it but short of that I don't see any lie she could have told let alone evidence she lied.  You seem to be reacting emotionally because of your dislike of her which in turn seems to stem from your whole bias in favor of Jeremy that you constanty deny having but is apparent in your posts.

[Jane]

The prosecutor wrote they could not prosecute her for the bank charge because the bank would not file a criminal complaint, that for the drug charges the would normally just give a caution under such circumstances and that there was nothing they could charge in relation to the caravan break in because she was just a bystander with the exception of the unsuccessful attempt to get the key for him.

OK. I was wrong it was a decision not to prosecute and nothing to do with granting immunity. That decision was very convenient for the police. They wouldn't have wanted their star witness to be (legally) less than squeaky clean. I can't imagine that this wasn't hinted at to the bank manager..........but I'm speculating and there's no proof.

[Alias]

Well I can pretty much tell you that without the police organising the appointment and going with her it is very "reasonable" to assume they would have prosecuted.

How do I know that ? Because I worked for a bank for 10 years and have seen similar cases. Fraud is serious .

It is typical of some of the guilters to downplay Julie´s criminal activities. They have to do that because they need to believe her story.
Fraud is very serious! No doubt the bank would have prosecuted her and Susan, had not a police officer escorted them to the bank and talked the manager out of it.

[Alias]

What did she lie about?  his is a perfect example of you own bias against her because you are a Jeremy supporter though you refuse to admit it.

Let's review she told them that she wanted to impress him that she could do something bad so she came up with the check fraud to impress him.  What did she lie about and what evidence do you have that she lied?

What you object to is not what she said but the characterization by the prosecutor that Jeremy corrupted her.  The prosecutor IN PART said he corrupted her by encouraging her to be bad and that she came up this idea in order to show him she could be bad.  He also said she was corrupted by him taking her with him to steal from the Caravan site and to help him sell drugs. 

There is no contradiction in saying she came up with the idea herself but did so in order to demonstrate to Jeremy that she could be bad like him.  There is nothing wrong with how the prosecutor interpreted such.

If you have proof she lied about doing it in order to impress him then bring it but short of that I don't see any lie she could have told let alone evidence she lied.  You seem to be reacting emotionally because of your dislike of her which in turn seems to stem from your whole bias in favor of Jeremy that you constanty deny having but is apparent in your posts.

I don´t need you to tell me what I think! You have zero insight, so thanks, but no thanks.

She wipes her own crimes off on Jeremy - despicable!

[scipio_usmc]

I agree. His whole persona comes across as flawed; not strong and knowledgable as he thinks! In reality the man is clueless about a lot of things. To be pitied when you think about it.

That is your warped view of my persona and others because if you actually took a rational view of me then it would demolish your claims and you would have to admit you are biased and wrong in your entire outlook of this case.

Time and again I demonstrate that you and other Jeremy supporters have no idea what you are talking about.  I go to the actual statements and never do the statements say what lookout, Jan or other supporters claim.

I posted AE's statements yesterday showing lookout thoroughly misrepresented the claim that Sheila was taught to fire a gun.

I posted the doctor statements demonstrating you were wrong about Sheila complaining about insomnia- the side effect from her medication was being drowsy.  That totally undercut your claim she would have been awake at 3AM to shoot everyone because of insomnia.

You and others say I am constantly wrong but never can prove it you just claim it and think that means something.  I not only explain why I prove you and others wrong I produce evidence to prove it.

Jeremy supporters are so desperate to ignore reality you just make up your own and ignore anything that proves your claims to be nonsense from ignoring what we currently know about proper dosage and effectiveness of Haldol to making the absurd claim that because someone grew up on a farm they must know how to shoot all guns.   

The current debate I won on the facts and also the overall argument.  The facts are that Julie was not given immunity they simply decided not to prosecute her and decided not to prosecute her because of a lack of evidence, lack of criminal complaint by the bank and also because at most they would normally issue a caution to a first time drug offender.  This was misrepresented as them granting immunity.

The overall argument is whether Julie had a reason to lie about Jeremy to save her own skin from criminal prosecution.  There are only 2 ways this comes into play in the real world:

1) Offered a deal: police know about a crime, tell her they are going to charge her and ask for her help in another case to avoid prosecution

2) Request a deal:

A) Police know about a crime and the criminal volunteers that they have information against someone and say they will talk in exchange for a deal

B) The person believes someone is going to rat them out and that police will thus soon learn about a crime so run to police and say they have information about others but want a deal in exchange for immunity from prosecution for their role

None of these happened.  Police only found out about her crimes because she confessed and had she not done so police would not have known about them and would have no evidence to prosecute her anyway.

The overarching issue is is there any evidence Julie made up the story about Jeremy to save herself and the answer is no there is no evidence of that at all.  That is what a rational objective person would see and is thus what the Courts see.

Calling me names or whatever rolls right off because I couldn't care less. I care about the facts, evidence and important issues not nonsense from opponents who know they have no hope of winning on the fact and evidence so instead make up the idea they won the debate anyway.

So while Caroline is busy saying she is doesn't care what evidence is brought to bear she refuses to believe the moderator was used in the murders that position doesn't disprove the evidence in any way shape or form.  It amounts to dismissing the evidence and such is irrational because Caroline has no reasonable basis for such belief.

People take exception to me pointing it out when their positions are irrational and unreasonable because they are not supported by sound arguments, facts and evidence.  That is what debating it for to test the rationality of claims and whether they are supported by the facts and credible evidence.

A site where people say well I choose to believe something just because that is what I want to believe amounts to a site that is not going to have any debating just recitations of unsupported opinions.  taken to the ultimate it would amount to Jeremy supporters saying they chose to believe he is innocent and others saying they choose to believe he is guilty and that's it.  There is nothing to debate and no where to go if that is all people are going to do is present their unsupported opinion, say they can believe anything they want and not want to debate the facts and evidence honestly.

[Alias]

That is your warped view of my persona and others because if you actually took a rational view of me then it would demolish your claims and you would have to admit you are biased and wrong in your entire outlook of this case.

Time and again I demonstrate that you and other Jeremy supporters have no idea what you are talking about.  I go to the actual statements and never do the statements say what lookout, Jan or other supporters claim.

I posted AE's statements yesterday showing lookout thoroughly misrepresented the claim that Sheila was taught to fire a gun.

I posted the doctor statements demonstrating you were wrong about Sheila complaining about insomnia- the side effect from her medication was being drowsy.  That totally undercut your claim she would have been awake at 3AM to shoot everyone because of insomnia.

You and others say I am constantly wrong but never can prove it you just claim it and think that means something.  I not only explain why I prove you and others wrong I produce evidence to prove it.

Jeremy supporters are so desperate to ignore reality you just make up your own and ignore anything that proves your claims to be nonsense from ignoring what we currently know about proper dosage and effectiveness of Haldol to making the absurd claim that because someone grew up on a farm they must know how to shoot all guns.   

The current debate I won on the facts and also the overall argument.  The facts are that Julie was not given immunity they simply decided not to prosecute her and decided not to prosecute her because of a lack of evidence, lack of criminal complaint by the bank and also because at most they would normally issue a caution to a first time drug offender.  This was misrepresented as them granting immunity.

The overall argument is whether Julie had a reason to lie about Jeremy to save her own skin from criminal prosecution.  There are only 2 ways this comes into play in the real world:

1) Offered a deal: police know about a crime, tell her they are going to charge her and ask for her help in another case to avoid prosecution

2) Request a deal:

A) Police know about a crime and the criminal volunteers that they have information against someone and say they will talk in exchange for a deal

B) The person believes someone is going to rat them out and that police will thus soon learn about a crime so run to police and say they have information about others but want a deal in exchange for immunity from prosecution for their role

None of these happened.  Police only found out about her crimes because she confessed and had she not done so police would not have known about them and would have no evidence to prosecute her anyway.

The overarching issue is is there any evidence Julie made up the story about Jeremy to save herself and the answer is no there is no evidence of that at all.  That is what a rational objective person would see and is thus what the Courts see.

Calling me names or whatever rolls right off because I couldn't care less. I care about the facts, evidence and important issues not nonsense from opponents who know they have no hope of winning on the fact and evidence so instead make up the idea they won the debate anyway.

So while Caroline is busy saying she is doesn't care what evidence is brought to bear she refuses to believe the moderator was used in the murders that position doesn't disprove the evidence in any way shape or form.  It amounts to dismissing the evidence and such is irrational because Caroline has no reasonable basis for such belief.

People take exception to me pointing it out when their positions are irrational and unreasonable because they are not supported by sound arguments, facts and evidence.  That is what debating it for to test the rationality of claims and whether they are supported by the facts and credible evidence.

A site where people say well I choose to believe something just because that is what I want to believe amounts to a site that is not going to have any debating just recitations of unsupported opinions.  taken to the ultimate it would amount to Jeremy supporters saying they chose to believe he is innocent and others saying they choose to believe he is guilty and that's it.  There is nothing to debate and no where to go if that is all people are going to do is present their unsupported opinion, say they can believe anything they want and not want to debate the facts and evidence honestly.

No one is forcing you to be here, you can stay away and be happy!

Rude man. 

[Jan]

"The current debate I won on the facts and also the overall argument.  The facts are that Julie was not given immunity they simply decided not to prosecute her and decided not to prosecute her because of a lack of evidence, lack of criminal complaint by the bank and also because at most they would normally issue a caution to a first time drug offender.  This was misrepresented as them granting immunity."

What a load of tosh - how can their be lack of evidence when someone confesses their crime.You are showing your bias now. Clear as day

[Jan]

Also you are the ignorant one because I consider lack of manners ignorance.

And you are still too scared to post one point at a time because you know it will be taken apart.

[Jane]

That is your warped view of my persona and others because if you actually took a rational view of me then it would demolish your claims and you would have to admit you are biased and wrong in your entire outlook of this case.

Time and again I demonstrate that you and other Jeremy supporters have no idea what you are talking about.  I go to the actual statements and never do the statements say what lookout, Jan or other supporters claim.

I posted AE's statements yesterday showing lookout thoroughly misrepresented the claim that Sheila was taught to fire a gun.

I posted the doctor statements demonstrating you were wrong about Sheila complaining about insomnia- the side effect from her medication was being drowsy.  That totally undercut your claim she would have been awake at 3AM to shoot everyone because of insomnia.

You and others say I am constantly wrong but never can prove it you just claim it and think that means something.  I not only explain why I prove you and others wrong I produce evidence to prove it.

Jeremy supporters are so desperate to ignore reality you just make up your own and ignore anything that proves your claims to be nonsense from ignoring what we currently know about proper dosage and effectiveness of Haldol to making the absurd claim that because someone grew up on a farm they must know how to shoot all guns.   

The current debate I won on the facts and also the overall argument.  The facts are that Julie was not given immunity they simply decided not to prosecute her and decided not to prosecute her because of a lack of evidence, lack of criminal complaint by the bank and also because at most they would normally issue a caution to a first time drug offender.  This was misrepresented as them granting immunity.

The overall argument is whether Julie had a reason to lie about Jeremy to save her own skin from criminal prosecution.  There are only 2 ways this comes into play in the real world:

1) Offered a deal: police know about a crime, tell her they are going to charge her and ask for her help in another case to avoid prosecution

2) Request a deal:

A) Police know about a crime and the criminal volunteers that they have information against someone and say they will talk in exchange for a deal

B) The person believes someone is going to rat them out and that police will thus soon learn about a crime so run to police and say they have information about others but want a deal in exchange for immunity from prosecution for their role

None of these happened.  Police only found out about her crimes because she confessed and had she not done so police would not have known about them and would have no evidence to prosecute her anyway.

The overarching issue is is there any evidence Julie made up the story about Jeremy to save herself and the answer is no there is no evidence of that at all.  That is what a rational objective person would see and is thus what the Courts see.

Calling me names or whatever rolls right off because I couldn't care less. I care about the facts, evidence and important issues not nonsense from opponents who know they have no hope of winning on the fact and evidence so instead make up the idea they won the debate anyway.

So while Caroline is busy saying she is doesn't care what evidence is brought to bear she refuses to believe the moderator was used in the murders that position doesn't disprove the evidence in any way shape or form.  It amounts to dismissing the evidence and such is irrational because Caroline has no reasonable basis for such belief.

People take exception to me pointing it out when their positions are irrational and unreasonable because they are not supported by sound arguments, facts and evidence.  That is what debating it for to test the rationality of claims and whether they are supported by the facts and credible evidence.

A site where people say well I choose to believe something just because that is what I want to believe amounts to a site that is not going to have any debating just recitations of unsupported opinions.  taken to the ultimate it would amount to Jeremy supporters saying they chose to believe he is innocent and others saying they choose to believe he is guilty and that's it.  There is nothing to debate and no where to go if that is all people are going to do is present their unsupported opinion, say they can believe anything they want and not want to debate the facts and evidence honestly.

Forgive this, Scipio, but the way I'm reading this is that trust for you is such that some here may believe that you simply present certain facts with your own interpretation in the way YOU want them to be seen. You have already said that there is a difference between the legal meaning of "reasonable"compared to the regular meaning which most of us are accustomed. This means, of course, that you're set to win every argument.

 Personally, I'm prepared to fight you tooth and nail over Sheila's psych. care and the reason is quite simple. I actually mind and CARE that she was let down whereas all you seem to be concerned about is scoring ANOTHER point at any cost. 

[scipio_usmc]

OK. I was wrong it was a decision not to prosecute and nothing to do with granting immunity. That decision was very convenient for the police. They wouldn't have wanted their star witness to be (legally) less than squeaky clean. I can't imagine that this wasn't hinted at to the bank manager..........but I'm speculating and there's no proof.

How dirty their witness is plays a role in whether they choose to believe the claims as well.  The jury was made fully aware of these actions she did, it was not concealed from them.

These actions don't make her claims not credible and that is a big problem for the defense.  In their own right these minor actions don't suggest she would make up the story.

People who tell cops things in exchange for money have a reason to make things up and thus paid informers have to be disclosed and such is used as a basis to challenge credibility.  When someone is caught for a crime and then tells of a different crime there is a motivation to make things up. A minority of people who roll over on others make up stories against others just to avoid prosecution most of the time they use real knowledge of a crime but some do make it up and thus the trier of fact has to consider and evaluate that.  That's not the case here though she told police about her crimes an din turn the jury heard. 

What Jeremy supporters are trying to allege is that there was extra info the jury was not told and that this extra info was she was given immunity but she wasn't so that argument flops.

I have addressed this issue from the factual legal stance of the bogus claim she was granted immunity and the jury failed to be told this and also from the big picture stance which is whether there is any evidence she made up the story to save her own neck and there is none.  So I don't understand why this keeps coming up. 

I understand why biased people would decide to want to believe she lied but this argument as a tool for such to demonstrate to others doesn't work.  It doesn't work because she was the one who made police aware of her crimes at the time she ratted Jeremy out, she had no need to do so because even if he raised some of them against her she could just deny it and no one could prove her wrong and she wasn't granted immunity so the technical legal argument of saying the jury should have heard she was granted immunity fails.

Another thing is people whine about me using the word ignorant of the facts.  Well there are 2 possibilities people are wrong which means ignorant of the fact or they are aware of the facts but are intentionally lying.  I only accuse people of lying when I have evidence that they are.  I intentionally use the word ignorant instead of stupid because stupid usually goes to actual mental abilities not simply a lack of knowledge about facts which can be learned.  So I take exception when people keep saying I am calling them stupid if I call them ignorant of the facts or biased.

 

[scipio_usmc]

Also you are the ignorant one because I consider lack of manners ignorance.

And you are still too scared to post one point at a time because you know it will be taken apart.

I am not scared to debate issues one at a time.  You and David attempted to attack one at a time some of the the points I raised in the thread about all the unlikely things that would have to occur in order for Jeremy to be innocent.  You could not debate most of them and the ones you did try to attack your attack failed miserably.

It is wrong though to try considering everything in isolation because they are interconnected and the totality of the circumstances is what matters legally and also a non-legal setting.

[Alias]

How dirty their witness is plays a role in whether they choose to believe the claims as well.  The jury was made fully aware of these actions she did, it was not concealed from them.

These actions don't make her claims not credible and that is a big problem for the defense.  In their own right these minor actions don't suggest she would make up the story.

People who tell cops things in exchange for money have a reason to make things up and thus paid informers have to be disclosed and such is used as a basis to challenge credibility.  When someone is caught for a crime and then tells of a different crime there is a motivation to make things up. A minority of people who roll over on others make up stories against others just to avoid prosecution most of the time they use real knowledge of a crime but some do make it up and thus the trier of fact has to consider and evaluate that.  That's not the case here though she told police about her crimes an din turn the jury heard. 

What Jeremy supporters are trying to allege is that there was extra info the jury was not told and that this extra info was she was given immunity but she wasn't so that argument flops.

I have addressed this issue from the factual legal stance of the bogus claim she was granted immunity and the jury failed to be told this and also from the big picture stance which is whether there is any evidence she made up the story to save her own neck and there is none.  So I don't understand why this keeps coming up. 

I understand why biased people would decide to want to believe she lied but this argument as a tool for such to demonstrate to others doesn't work.  It doesn't work because she was the one who made police aware of her crimes at the time she ratted Jeremy out, she had no need to do so because even if he raised some of them against her she could just deny it and no one could prove her wrong and she wasn't granted immunity so the technical legal argument of saying the jury should have heard she was granted immunity fails.

Another thing is people whine about me using the word ignorant of the facts.  Well there are 2 possibilities people are wrong which means ignorant of the fact or they are aware of the facts but are intentionally lying.  I only accuse people of lying when I have evidence that they are.  I intentionally use the word ignorant instead of stupid because stupid usually goes to actual mental abilities not simply a lack of knowledge about facts which can be learned.  So I take exception when people keep saying I am calling them stupid if I call them ignorant of the facts or biased.

 

I can say it much shorter: you are rude.
One sentence, three words! 

[Jane]

How dirty their witness is plays a role in whether they choose to believe the claims as well.  The jury was made fully aware of these actions she did, it was not concealed from them.

These actions don't make her claims not credible and that is a big problem for the defense.  In their own right these minor actions don't suggest she would make up the story.

People who tell cops things in exchange for money have a reason to make things up and thus paid informers have to be disclosed and such is used as a basis to challenge credibility.  When someone is caught for a crime and then tells of a different crime there is a motivation to make things up. A minority of people who roll over on others make up stories against others just to avoid prosecution most of the time they use real knowledge of a crime but some do make it up and thus the trier of fact has to consider and evaluate that.  That's not the case here though she told police about her crimes an din turn the jury heard. 

What Jeremy supporters are trying to allege is that there was extra info the jury was not told and that this extra info was she was given immunity but she wasn't so that argument flops.

I have addressed this issue from the factual legal stance of the bogus claim she was granted immunity and the jury failed to be told this and also from the big picture stance which is whether there is any evidence she made up the story to save her own neck and there is none.  So I don't understand why this keeps coming up. 

I understand why biased people would decide to want to believe she lied but this argument as a tool for such to demonstrate to others doesn't work.  It doesn't work because she was the one who made police aware of her crimes at the time she ratted Jeremy out, she had no need to do so because even if he raised some of them against her she could just deny it and no one could prove her wrong and she wasn't granted immunity so the technical legal argument of saying the jury should have heard she was granted immunity fails.

Another thing is people whine about me using the word ignorant of the facts.  Well there are 2 possibilities people are wrong which means ignorant of the fact or they are aware of the facts but are intentionally lying.  I only accuse people of lying when I have evidence that they are.  I intentionally use the word ignorant instead of stupid because stupid usually goes to actual mental abilities not simply a lack of knowledge about facts which can be learned.  So I take exception when people keep saying I am calling them stupid if I call them ignorant of the facts or biased.

 

By ALL means tell them that they're ignorant OF FACTS. If it's a fact, there's nothing wrong with saying it, but PLEASE don't refer to members here as BEING ignorant. It has an entirely different connotation. It is equally as insulting as calling someone stupid -although you CAN say that someone is behaving/acting STUPIDLY without causing offence- and I see no justifiable reason why you need to.

When you say "the jury was made fully aware................" how can you be sure of that? Do you know exactly what was said? Do you know the IQ of the jury members? Are you aware of the personal "stuff" they bought into the courtroom with them?

Personally I'm more inclined to think that JM (finally) told what she knew -if she tweaked it who was to know as there WAS only her word for any of it- because it became obvious that marriage was no longer an option for her................but undoubtedly you'll dismiss it because there is no proof.

[lookout]

 "the jury was made fully aware-----------except the one who was asleep.

[Jan]

I am not scared to debate issues one at a time.  You and David attempted to attack one at a time some of the the points I raised in the thread about all the unlikely things that would have to occur in order for Jeremy to be innocent.  You could not debate most of them and the ones you did try to attack your attack failed miserably.

It is wrong though to try considering everything in isolation because they are interconnected and the totality of the circumstances is what matters legally and also a non-legal setting.

Nahh I just get bored easily. Especially with your posts.