Its things like this that gave me confidence in what J was telling me about things to do with his convictions being 'wrong', as he used to put it, ' I didn't have anything whatsoever to do with killing any one member of my family', he used to say, ' you've got to believe me, Mike', he would often say. It wasn't a case of me believing what he used to tell me, it was about finding out the truth from his perspective, listening to him, interrogating him, much pondering on my part. Did he do it? Didn't he do it? If he did do it, how had he done it? If he hadn't done it, how had they 'all' framed him for doing it? I decided from an early stage, after some contemplating, that the best way forward insofar as to his possible culpability was concerned, was to try to get the sequence with which J says he can remember about how things had panned out or happened. And that is what I did. One thing I have learned from the vast knowledge I possess through being regarded as a career criminal by the authorities, is that the most import feature in any prosecution or police investigation is 'timing'. 'Tempest fugit', and time stands still for nobody. If you can get an accurate account of the sequence of events it will stand you in good stead. In most cases, that's how cops put innocent victims in the frame. They do it by presenting evidence with timed events. They falsify it deliberately sometimes, and get witnesses to lie about the time this happened, or the time that happened, or I saw him at this time, and I spoke to him at this and that time. What I learned during my 60 years is that the all important feature in any case, is trying to identify the actual true sequence of events, no matter how trivial a thing it might be that you find yourself wanting to find out about, its timing that counts in law, but the next best thing if you can't remember timed events, is the sequence with which things happened in...
