outlandish Theory's

[David1819]

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.

If your interested about what the Jury did not hear allot can be found in this document from Bambers Lawyer Paul Terzeon

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,618.msg13754.html#msg13754

[lookout]

An utter and bloody disgrace !!

[lookout]

One word describes this--------------DELIBERATE !!

Those who had Jeremy convicted,one word for them----------MALICIOUS !!

[David1819]

An utter and bloody disgrace !!

what is? elaborate

[lookout]

what is? elaborate

What do you mean " what is ?". The fact that the defence knew bugger all,that's what is !

[lookout]

what is? elaborate

Of course your thoughts are bound to be different seeing as you say he's guilty.

[Caroline]

What do you mean " what is ?". The fact that the defence knew bugger all,that's what is !

If the defence did a poor job, that's their fault.

[lookout]

If the defence did a poor job, that's their fault.

They obviously wouldn't have done a poor job if ALL the appropriate/correct information had been given to them at the time. It's no good years later.
Although saying that there should have been far more questions asked and enquiries sought at the time.
I still say it's a disgrace that not only false information was given but nothing was questioned at the time. I'd have been more on the ball than they were and would have matched AE no problem.

[Jane]

If your interested about what the Jury did not hear allot can be found in this document from Bambers Lawyer Paul Terzeon

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,618.msg13754.html#msg13754

Given the amount he claims NOT to have known, I'm surprised enough was known to put a case together. Is he just passing the buck here or making excuses?

[Jan]

No one here is saying that she never took/tried drugs. But I think all are in agreement (other than yourself) that a £40k drug debt for Sheila is highly unlikely and certainly has not been proven and no evidence has ever been seen that

Jeremy found a cheque stub.
June paid off anything for Sheila for the sum of 40k
Sheila was a heavy enough user to ever get even close to that debt.

I agree - something that appears in a paper and is not proven and then re-appears in books must not be taken too seriously as newspapers always have an ulterior motive. But the same should be said about things written about Jeremy as well.

[maggie]

I agree - something that appears in a paper and is not proven and then re-appears in books must not be taken too seriously as newspapers always have an ulterior motive. But the same should be said about things written about Jeremy as well.

I agree Jan.

[Jane]

I agree - something that appears in a paper and is not proven and then re-appears in books must not be taken too seriously as newspapers always have an ulterior motive. But the same should be said about things written about Jeremy as well.

Absolutely Jan. It works both ways. I've never thought or said differently.

[lookout]

Recreational or a heavy user ? Or just a " taster " ? There is a difference,to the brain that is. 

[guest154]

I agree - something that appears in a paper and is not proven and then re-appears in books must not be taken too seriously as newspapers always have an ulterior motive. But the same should be said about things written about Jeremy as well.

I agree and it is when written about Jeremy.
There is more proof that Jeremy had the photos of Sheila and tried to sell them to the press, there are statements about that but supporters state how you shouldn't believe books/the press... funny how when it's to do with Sheila it is suddenly true. Just shows you how some don't care if something is true.

[lookout]

I agree and it is when written about Jeremy.
There is more proof that Jeremy had the photos of Sheila and tried to sell them to the press, there are statements about that but supporters state how you shouldn't believe books/the press...



funny how when it's to do with Sheila it is suddenly true. Just shows you how some don't care if something is true.

This works both ways too !!