outlandish Theory's

[susan]

Hi Susan,I'm so glad I'm not on my own. Horrible though isn't it ? Try as you might you can't help it. It's the result of hanging on to my emotions ( it's what I say anyway ) though I'm not a " nervy " type.

Lookout I guess being in the type of work you were in you would have to appear cool and in control otherwise the patients would have run a mile hahaha (kidding) I am not cool but not bad tempered gawd knows what I am maybe sensitive is the word.

[wiggy]

al im trying to do is take circumstantial and supposition out of the question and base his sittuation on actual known facts which there are very few.

It comes down to what you believe and what is probable.

However being probably guilty should not be enough as you must not give gulty if there is any reasonable doubt.

thats all i am mean i agree that with all the circumstantial evidence and if you believe the family and JM then circumstantially hes probably guilty but that is not enough.

And i have grave doubts about JMS testimony and in the familys motive enough to allow reasonable doubt.

But what do i Know

 

[Caroline]

al im trying to do is take circumstantial and supposition out of the question and base his sittuation on actual known facts which there are very few.

It comes down to what you believe and what is probable.

However being probably guilty should not be enough as you must not give gulty if there is any reasonable doubt.

thats all i am mean i agree that with all the circumstantial evidence and if you believe the family and JM then circumstantially hes probably guilty but that is not enough.

And i have grave doubts about JMS testimony and in the familys motive enough to allow reasonable doubt.

But what do i Know

But it was enough - hence the conviction.

[wiggy]

it was enough based uon the jury had noide the family would benifit from jbs verdict nor that jm had immunity or that she was negotiating with the newspapers .

Also it was enough in many cases that are overturned.

But as i say what do i know just think that there is a case for doubt.

[Jane]

it was enough based uon the jury had noide the family would benifit from jbs verdict nor that jm had immunity or that she was negotiating with the newspapers .

Also it was enough in many cases that are overturned.

But as i say what do i know just think that there is a case for doubt.

Supposing the jury HAD known that the family would benefit from his conviction. Would that have "unguiltied" him?  It's only your opinion that circumstantial evidence isn't enough to convict. It obviously was because they convicted him.  Are you suggesting they'd have let a guilty man walk free to prevent his relatives from benefiting?  Or because his ex was going to do a deal with a newspaper and they felt sorry for him.  I'm prepared to bet he'd have demanded a hell of a lot more than £25,000.

[Caroline]

Supposing the jury HAD known that the family would benefit from his conviction. Would that have "unguiltied" him?  It's only your opinion that circumstantial evidence isn't enough to convict. It obviously was because they convicted him.  Are you suggesting they'd have let a guilty man walk free to prevent his relatives from benefiting?  Or because his ex was going to do a deal with a newspaper and they felt sorry for him.  I'm prepared to bet he'd have demanded a hell of a lot more than £25,000.

He'd made his own deal - for £40,000.00 - perhaps the jury should have known that?

[guest154]

He'd made his own deal - for £40,000.00 - perhaps the jury should have known that?

We never seem to hear about Jeremy's deal! 

But as much as I am sure he wanted the 40k, he had much more reason to lie, his freedom!

[Jane]

He'd made his own deal - for £40,000.00 - perhaps the jury should have known that?

Caroline, it occurs to me that as the jury don't get to know about the defendant's "previous" because of possible prejudice, this COULD be said to apply to what they allowed to know of witnesses.

[Jane]

We never seem to hear about Jeremy's deal! 

But as much as I am sure he wanted the 40k, he had much more reason to lie, his freedom!

 So add that to the inheritance and we're talking approx. half a million. And there was Adam saying he wasn't clever enough to go out and make his own millions!!!

[lookout]

According to Claire Powell,where the £40,000 came in was the debt which had belonged to Sheila to which her mother paid by cheque,but I suppose any old lie will do so long as what's said implicates Jeremy ?

[Jane]

According to Claire Powell,where the £40,000 came in was the debt which had belonged to Sheila to which her mother paid by cheque,but I suppose any old lie will do so long as what's said implicates Jeremy ?

Have you asked yourself just how CP managed to find this information and from whom? When she wrote that book there was no one left alive who could authenticate/corroborate that story.........................unless she got it from Jeremy who was trying to deflect the £40,000 he'd asked the newspaper for.

[lookout]

Have you asked yourself just how CP managed to find this information and from whom? When she wrote that book there was no one left alive who could authenticate/corroborate that story.........................unless she got it from Jeremy who was trying to deflect the £40,000 he'd asked the newspaper for.

The information was evident in a cheque stub which Jeremy had found in his mother's cheque book., It had been made out to Sheila,so with bills that had mounted up,he'd have also found out through the " drug-world " which existed at the time,that she'd also owed that bill too which wasn't that long before the tragedy.

[lookout]

It's actually referenced in page 156 of Wilkes's book. A heading had appeared in the Mirror about her owing two notorious drug barons the amount of £40,000.

[lookout]

And because the press told the world that Jeremy was the murderer we have to believe ALL the media says !! The aforementioned being no different.

[Jane]

The information was evident in a cheque stub which Jeremy had found in his mother's cheque book., It had been made out to Sheila,so with bills that had mounted up,he'd have also found out through the " drug-world " which existed at the time,that she'd also owed that bill too which wasn't that long before the tragedy.

So what you're saying is, this is hearsay. There is no proof that Jeremy found this check stub. No mention has ever been made of £40,000 going out of June's account -a vast amount NOW, a FORTUNE then-  and nothing to say if such an amount, IF it was missing, was drug related. If Sheila had managed to get through that amount, she'd undoubtedly have been an addict rather than a social user.