The main prosecution forensic case

[lookout]

No I follow the facts where they lead.  I got involved in this case because someone told me Jeremy was railroaded and the allegations were so interesting I had to look into it.  It sounded like it was an amazing conspiracy with bodies moved and so forth.  I thought the claims could be true. 

Upon scrutiny though I found out there was more evidence than I was lead to believe.  Most of the evidence used to convict Jeremy was never mentioned and the case against him not accurately described.  Worse most of the spectacular claims like planted evidence, bodies being moved and shot by police, Nevill phoning police himself etc all fell apart under scrutiny.  So I had to go to square one nad look at the exact evidence used to convict fully understand the entire case and then look at the defense evidence and evaluate whether they refuted the evidence of guilt.  It is pretty obvious they failed to do so.  I am still waiting for something to refute the evidence that establishes Jeremy is guilty and if that is ever successfully accomplished then at that point I will accept he is innocent.

I operate on the basis of proof and evidence.  I follow the evidence where it leads. Some people like you have decided Jeremy is innocent no matter what and you close your eyes to ,any of the relevant facts in assessing whether he is guilty or not.  It often results in you simply accepting made up things posted by Mike and others instead of making sure the claims are actually true.  If it is favorable to Jeremy you accept something if unfavorable to Jeremy you reject it.  You accept or reject based on whether it helps or hurts Jeremy not whether it is substantiated. That is the very essence of how bias operates.

Biased or not people should strive to make sure they are operating on real facts because it hurts credibility and makes someone look dishonest or at least foolish when they adopt claims that end up being made up. Trying to spin real facts is one thing.  Trying to use made up facts and claims is something else.

Wow,you've done lots of practice getting out of tight corners. You're more like a salesman with the gift of the gab. Trying to pull the wool,except that it doesn't work for me. And speaking of spin---------------------

[scipio_usmc]

So you DO think that then by TOTALLY agreeing with him.  [Profanity Redacted]

For one thing she doesn't agree with me totally, she thinks the moderator evidence was doctored.

Cursing doesn't help your cause it highlights acting out of emotion.

People who are biased can still make accurate points if they try.  Biased people can still make accurate claims that can be backed up by evidence. So just being biased doesn't equate to no longer being able to debate unless the biased person is unwilling to try doing so and would rather engage in a pissing contest, which serves little purpose.

 

[maggie]

For one thing she doesn't agree with me totally, she thinks the moderator evidence was doctored.

Cursing doesn't help your cause it highlights acting out of emotion.

People who are biased can still make accurate points if they try.  Biased people can still make accurate claims that can be backed up by evidence. So just being biased doesn't equate to no longer being able to debate unless the biased person is unwilling to try doing so and would rather engage in a pissing contest, which serves little purpose.

Here endeth the lesson !!!

[lookout]

Tee hee hee.

[Caroline]

For one thing she doesn't agree with me totally, she thinks the moderator evidence was doctored.

Cursing doesn't help your cause it highlights acting out of emotion.

People who are biased can still make accurate points if they try.  Biased people can still make accurate claims that can be backed up by evidence. So just being biased doesn't equate to no longer being able to debate unless the biased person is unwilling to try doing so and would rather engage in a pissing contest, which serves little purpose.

I agree, well said!!

[Mr. Gee]

For one thing she doesn't agree with me totally, she thinks the moderator evidence was doctored.

Cursing doesn't help your cause it highlights acting out of emotion.

People who are biased can still make accurate points if they try.  Biased people can still make accurate claims that can be backed up by evidence. So just being biased doesn't equate to no longer being able to debate unless the biased person is unwilling to try doing so and would rather engage in a pissing contest, which serves little purpose.

Well quite frankly scipio that is what she said, "I agree totally". Cussing make me feel better especially when trying to convey to those who are blindly fumbling around in the dark so much that they can't even appreciate other posters views who don't happen to agree with them. Not only so but I will tell a poster whatever side they're on that if I think so that it is a good post, as I have with your posts. So it is grossly unfair to say that I am on the fence so called.

[scipio_usmc]

Wow,you've done lots of practice getting out of tight corners. You're more like a salesman with the gift of the gab. Trying to pull the wool,except that it doesn't work for me. And speaking of spin---------------------

That depends on what you mean by tight corners.  I have things easy.  I am just using facts and evidence developed by the prosecution which convicted Jeremy before a jury and which numerous Courts of Appeal have upheld.  I am not going against the river I am flowing with it. 

The people who have it tough are those trying to refute the evidence and to say something else happened than the official account.

If this case were used as a law class assignment with half the class told they had to represent Jeremy and the other half told they get to represent the prosecution then the ones assigned to the defense are the ones screwed because their job is much harder. 

The fact that this is predominantly a pro-Jeremy site makes it hard to convince others that my points are right but I have no need to convince Jeremy supporters of anything.  That is something Adam can't seem to get through his head.  We are not having a trial where the pro-Jeremy people are making a decision and thus must be convinced of something. We are debating facts and issues and what people choose to believe doesn't make all that much difference when the point of the debate is to highlight the issues.

In those debated Jeremy supporters are goign against the grain and thus have the much harder job.  for those Jeremy supporters who want to sway public opinion they actually have to convince people the official account is wrong.  Worse to get Jeremy out of jail they have to convince an Appeal Court that the evidence used to convict Jeremy was flawed.  Those Jeremy supporters who have undertaken a mission are the ones with a tough uphill battle.

Since I am objective I don't care what others choose to believe I just argue about why they believe it and what evidence they have to support it because that is the heart of what you fight over in a debate. 
Rationale for a claim and evidence in support of it is what true debates are about.  That is what I enjoy and the topic doesn't matter I will argue about anything.

I have something to debate because people are willing to take the other side and in this case the other side is not easy to argue so I am under no delusions about who has the harder task. 

[John]

Hi Grahame, that language is totally unacceptable whoever uses it. Please stop it!

Careful Maggie, you might give him a complex! 

[scipio_usmc]

Well quite frankly scipio that is what she said, "I agree totally". Cussing make me feel better especially when trying to convey to those who are blindly fumbling around in the dark so much that they can't even appreciate other posters views who don't happen to agree with them. Not only so but I will tell a poster whatever side they're on that if I think so that it is a good post, as I have with your posts. So it is grossly unfair to say that I am on the fence so called.

Here's a thought- instead of blowing up you could try to prove us wrong by actually attempting to substantively address the arguments that were made about why it is unlikely she was lying.

I presented a set explanation of what evidence supported her claims. That presents pints to address.  All you did was brand Julie liar without producing anything to back it up and nothing to address what I raised.

 

[Mr. Gee]

That depends on what you mean by tight corners.  I have things easy.  I am just using facts and evidence developed by the prosecution which convicted Jeremy before a jury and which numerous Courts of Appeal have upheld.  I am not going against the river I am flowing with it. 

The people who have it tough are those trying to refute the evidence and to say something else happened than the official account.

If this case were used as a law class assignment with half the class told they had to represent Jeremy and the other half told they get to represent the prosecution then the ones assigned to the defense are the ones screwed because their job is much harder. 

The fact that this is predominantly a pro-Jeremy site makes it hard to convince others that my points are right but I have no need to convince Jeremy supporters of anything.  That is something Adam can't seem to get through his head.  We are not having a trial where the pro-Jeremy people are making a decision and thus must be convinced of something. We are debating facts and issues and what people choose to believe doesn't make all that much difference when the point of the debate is to highlight the issues.

In those debated Jeremy supporters are goign against the grain and thus have the much harder job.  for those Jeremy supporters who want to sway public opinion they actually have to convince people the official account is wrong.  Worse to get Jeremy out of jail they have to convince an Appeal Court that the evidence used to convict Jeremy was flawed.  Those Jeremy supporters who have undertaken a mission are the ones with a tough uphill battle.

Since I am objective I don't care what others choose to believe I just argue about why they believe it and what evidence they have to support it because that is the heart of what you fight over in a debate. 
Rationale for a claim and evidence in support of it is what true debates are about.  That is what I enjoy and the topic doesn't matter I will argue about anything.

I have something to debate because people are willing to take the other side and in this case the other side is not easy to argue so I am under no delusions about who has the harder task.

The problem is not that the so called supporters cannot refute the evidence. It is rather that they don't agree with your take on the evidence which you think is the only interpretation of the evidence. I gave you a perfectly logical reply together with evidence as to why I don't believe Mugford's testimony. Which you rejected out of hand as being ludicrous. You see what I mean? This constant deriding of others who do not hold precicely to your take on things and unfortunately other of your raw recruits are beginning to sound a bit like you as well.

[Mr. Gee]

Jesus, if me or Scipio said 'f--- off b----' we would be permanently banned.

Don't be paranoid Adam you are treated exactly the same as us better people.

[Mr. Gee]

I agree, well said!!

Oh hail scipio let me kiss your feet oh great one.

[Jan]

He didn't need to bury his clothes, he wouldn't be an immediate suspect with the story he had in mind and the staging he had just completed.

unless he had come up intelligent policemen who spotted the "staged body" and his so called behaviour and lack of emotion. So unless he was really stupid he must have made plans for that eventuality.

And anyway I was just quoting other posters explanations - not mine.

[lookout]

Arlidge wasn't " within a country mile of showing anything that came close to proving Jeremy pulled the trigger.," so he resorted to nit-picking all the way through the trial. Sound familiar ?? 

[Caroline]

Mike has told me to F off many times in the past and on occasion Graham had cursed me as well.  That is the first time I saw him do it to a female though.  I don't care if someone curses me or not though and don't want them banned for it.  It doesn't hurt me it hurts the person who resorts to it by demonstrating they are unwilling or unable to deal substantively with the arguments I made.

Am I bovered? I usually consider the source!