outlandish Theory's

[wiggy]

thanks folks

I have read and look over quite a bit of stuff over the last week. But to look over everything and take i all in i have not done yet.

A lot of the stuff is ope to so much interpretation so again we come back to the fact there is no overwhelming evidence and on the 3 main reasons for his conviction the silencer , the call, and the testimony of JM are definitely in question and if the judge (and adam i have not read the full summing up yet although i know its on here somewhere) but if he said the telephone call was mysterious  that in itself is grounds for a retrial as that is an opinion not a summary but i would need to see the context in which he said it.

In this country we believe in the burden of proof. This means that any suspect is to be seen as innocent unless the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone is guilty.

JB in this case needs to prove nothing he doesn't need to prove the phone call or that JM is lying but the prosecution need to prove there was no call and that all of what JM says is true they failed to do this with any actual evidence.

I know JB took a lie detector and i know there not 100% accurate i wonder id JM would pass one. Maybe the sun newspaper should offer her £100 000 to take one if she is confident of passing

[lookout]

A good reasonable post. I like the end bit.

[Caroline]

Exactly. No evidence at all and what was used was contaminated which should have been stated as inconclusive. Even in our DNA age,a match has to be a perfect one or the findings are no longer unique to that particular person,so how could the lab. say for absolute certainty that blood found on the silencer belonged to Sheila ? Rabbits blood is similar to human blood when tested,but the blood in question was only grouped of which there are a percentage of people with a similar blood group.

Julie Mugford had been coerced into saying what she'd said,knowing that there was a reward at the end of it. Pity the jury hadn't known ?

Finally I'm 100% certain that Jeremy is innocent. The exaggerations which made in the case beggared belief. EP needed a conviction under their belts or their heads went on the chopping block after their abysmal failures prior to the WHF murders.

There is defo no evidence that there was a phone call - just a story by Jeremy that kicked the whole thing  off so if we're talking about 'lack of evidence' - lets start with that!!

[lookout]

There is defo no evidence that there was a phone call - just a story by Jeremy that kicked the whole thing  off so if we're talking about 'lack of evidence' - lets start with that!!

Do any of US know for SURE that there was no evidence of a phone-call ? No.

[Caroline]

Do any of US know for SURE that there was no evidence of a phone-call ? No.

Err yes we do DEFINITELY! Given that the system of the time didn't allow for the call to be registered.

[lookout]

Err yes we do DEFINITELY! Given that the system of the time didn't allow for the call to be registered.

Last call number on the digital phone which was used.

[notsure]

Perhaps the ct can start trying to raise funds to get jm to take a lie detector as i for ond do not believe her evidence.

[Jane]

Perhaps the ct can start trying to raise funds to get jm to take a lie detector as i for ond do not believe her evidence.

Just how do you think she might be persuaded to do such? Isn't there something here about leading a horse to water.............................?

[lookout]

You're not on your own,Notsure.

[notsure]

She wouldnt take one. Not in a million years but if she did as far as im concerned if it came back that she was truthful then i would believe that and accept he was guilty.

Never going to happen though.

[Caroline]

Last call number on the digital phone which was used.

What? 

[Caroline]

Perhaps the ct can start trying to raise funds to get jm to take a lie detector as i for ond do not believe her evidence.

How do you think they can force her to take such a test?

[Jane]

She wouldnt take one. Not in a million years but if she did as far as im concerned if it came back that she was truthful then i would believe that and accept he was guilty.

Never going to happen though.

Let me get this right. You're saying that the only way in which you'll believe she told the truth is by doing something that you can rest assured she'll never do. Interesting. Can you tell us which part of her testimony you believe to be untruthful?

[Jan]

As much as I find Julies Evidence very hard to believe I do appreciate that apparently she was willing to appear at one of the appeals - although apparently she did not in the end say anything ( I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong) So unfortunately we don't know whether she was going to re-enforce her evidence or not .

[wiggy]

the point being she will never take a lie detector. However if she was so sure of her testimony and to put the people who don't believe her closer to believing her. But as you say it wont happen.

jane the point of there being noproof of the telephone call is that in British law JB does not have to prove that there was a call it is up to the prosecution to prove there wasn't one .

They can not prove that there was no call just as they cant prove that there was definate match of Shirleys blood on the silencer.

The bottom line is JMs testimony is tainted without her testimony which should have been disallowed i believe the jury would have found in his favour.

As again he is presumed innocent until proven different.

I actually think he may be guilty but i also believe that he should not have been convicted on the evidence.