When the enquiry changed from a suicide to murder did the relatives have alibis?

[Hartley]

I think you're mistaken Jackie, I haven't said very much at all. 

You keep trying to drag me in to discussions, of which I have no interest in.

[John]

Jackie got her knickers in a twist again as usual.  How can I answer your silly questions when I am away?

In any event I asked the question as to who fits the bill as a psychotic cold blooded murderer.  I believe Julie Mugford and 10 good men and women have already answered that one!   

[grahameb]

Jackie got her knickers in a twist again as usual.  How can I answer your silly questions when I am away?

In any event I asked the question as to who fits the bill as a psychotic cold blooded murderer.  I believe Julie Mugford and 10 good men and women have already answered that one!   

What about the other two? One more and he would have been aquitted under British law. Anyway, how do you know they were men?

[grahameb]

Jackie got her knickers in a twist again as usual.  How can I answer your silly questions when I am away?

In any event I asked the question as to who fits the bill as a psychotic cold blooded murderer.  I believe Julie Mugford and 10 good men and women have already answered that one!   

John you posted twice and Hartley you posted twice. What do you mean you haven't said anything. Got yur knickers in a twist as well have we?

[Hartley]

Jackie got her knickers in a twist again as usual.  How can I answer your silly questions when I am away?

In any event I asked the question as to who fits the bill as a psychotic cold blooded murderer.  I believe Julie Mugford and 10 good men and women have already answered that one!   

What about the other two? One more and he would have been aquitted under British law. Anyway, how do you know they were men?

Actually no it wouldn't, 9-3 would have still convicted in this case.

[Hartley]

Jackie got her knickers in a twist again as usual.  How can I answer your silly questions when I am away?

In any event I asked the question as to who fits the bill as a psychotic cold blooded murderer.  I believe Julie Mugford and 10 good men and women have already answered that one!   

John you posted twice and Hartley you posted twice. What do you mean you haven't said anything. Got yur knickers in a twist as well have we?

I didn't say I hadn't posted anything, I was informed I'd had a lot to say for myself,  I posted a joke and a reply to the likability of the relatives and that's all.

Yes my knickers are well and truly in a twist (I knew thongs were a bad idea), I'm clearly going nuclear in a mad rage confronting every post I disagree with, how dare people think they can have a different view to mine, it will come back and either do the ghost thing and haunt them or do the corgi thing and bite them on the ass, they will be sorry, etc, etc.

Come on guys get a grip.

[grahameb]

Jackie got her knickers in a twist again as usual.  How can I answer your silly questions when I am away?

In any event I asked the question as to who fits the bill as a psychotic cold blooded murderer.  I believe Julie Mugford and 10 good men and women have already answered that one!   

John you posted twice and Hartley you posted twice. What do you mean you haven't said anything. Got yur knickers in a twist as well have we?

I didn't say I hadn't posted anything, I was informed I'd had a lot to say for myself,  I posted a joke and a reply to the likability of the relatives and that's all.

Yes my knickers are well and truly in a twist (I knew thongs were a bad idea), I'm clearly going nuclear in a mad rage confronting every post I disagree with, how dare people think they can have a different view to mine, it will come back and either do the ghost thing and haunt them or do the corgi thing and bite them on the ass, they will be sorry, etc, etc.

Come on guys get a grip.

Having said what I have said on this thread though. I think personally that it may be we are going down a bit of a blind alley. Some of the relatives, although they may have behaved in an inappropriate way with regard to the investigation and some of the things they said should not have been taken as seriously as they were, nevertheless I don't think any of them had any involvement in the murders.

[Hartley]

Jackie got her knickers in a twist again as usual.  How can I answer your silly questions when I am away?

In any event I asked the question as to who fits the bill as a psychotic cold blooded murderer.  I believe Julie Mugford and 10 good men and women have already answered that one!   

What about the other two? One more and he would have been aquitted under British law. Anyway, how do you know they were men?

Actually no it wouldn't, 9-3 would have still convicted in this case.

Actually I think I'm telling lies here (move over JM  ) a 9-3 would mean a retrial - I think anyway.

[Hartley]

Jackie got her knickers in a twist again as usual.  How can I answer your silly questions when I am away?

In any event I asked the question as to who fits the bill as a psychotic cold blooded murderer.  I believe Julie Mugford and 10 good men and women have already answered that one!   

John you posted twice and Hartley you posted twice. What do you mean you haven't said anything. Got yur knickers in a twist as well have we?

I didn't say I hadn't posted anything, I was informed I'd had a lot to say for myself,  I posted a joke and a reply to the likability of the relatives and that's all.

Yes my knickers are well and truly in a twist (I knew thongs were a bad idea), I'm clearly going nuclear in a mad rage confronting every post I disagree with, how dare people think they can have a different view to mine, it will come back and either do the ghost thing and haunt them or do the corgi thing and bite them on the ass, they will be sorry, etc, etc.

Come on guys get a grip.

Having said what I have said on this thread though. I think personally that it may be we are going down a bit of a blind alley. Some of the relatives, although they may have behaved in an inappropriate way with regard to the investigation and some of the things they said should not have been taken as seriously as they were, nevertheless I don't think any of them had any involvement in the murders.

Yeah a bit of character assassination never hurts though. 

[grahameb]

Jackie got her knickers in a twist again as usual.  How can I answer your silly questions when I am away?

In any event I asked the question as to who fits the bill as a psychotic cold blooded murderer.  I believe Julie Mugford and 10 good men and women have already answered that one!   

John you posted twice and Hartley you posted twice. What do you mean you haven't said anything. Got yur knickers in a twist as well have we?

I didn't say I hadn't posted anything, I was informed I'd had a lot to say for myself,  I posted a joke and a reply to the likability of the relatives and that's all.

Yes my knickers are well and truly in a twist (I knew thongs were a bad idea), I'm clearly going nuclear in a mad rage confronting every post I disagree with, how dare people think they can have a different view to mine, it will come back and either do the ghost thing and haunt them or do the corgi thing and bite them on the ass, they will be sorry, etc, etc.

Come on guys get a grip.

Having said what I have said on this thread though. I think personally that it may be we are going down a bit of a blind alley. Some of the relatives, although they may have behaved in an inappropriate way with regard to the investigation and some of the things they said should not have been taken as seriously as they were, nevertheless I don't think any of them had any involvement in the murders.

Yeah a bit of character assassination never hurts though. 

I bet if any of us actually met we wouldn't say half the things we do say. The internet is a bit like driving a car. We can say all manner of things that in a personal confrontation we would not say. Just think of it for a second. It will make no difference to us personally whatever may be decided by the authorities. We would still go on in our own lives speculating about this and that. But we are not actually fighting for our own lives, only our opinions. As my friend always says, "Opinions are like ar****ls, everybody has one". 

[Hartley]

Jackie got her knickers in a twist again as usual.  How can I answer your silly questions when I am away?

In any event I asked the question as to who fits the bill as a psychotic cold blooded murderer.  I believe Julie Mugford and 10 good men and women have already answered that one!   

John you posted twice and Hartley you posted twice. What do you mean you haven't said anything. Got yur knickers in a twist as well have we?

I didn't say I hadn't posted anything, I was informed I'd had a lot to say for myself,  I posted a joke and a reply to the likability of the relatives and that's all.

Yes my knickers are well and truly in a twist (I knew thongs were a bad idea), I'm clearly going nuclear in a mad rage confronting every post I disagree with, how dare people think they can have a different view to mine, it will come back and either do the ghost thing and haunt them or do the corgi thing and bite them on the ass, they will be sorry, etc, etc.

Come on guys get a grip.

Having said what I have said on this thread though. I think personally that it may be we are going down a bit of a blind alley. Some of the relatives, although they may have behaved in an inappropriate way with regard to the investigation and some of the things they said should not have been taken as seriously as they were, nevertheless I don't think any of them had any involvement in the murders.

Yeah a bit of character assassination never hurts though. 

I bet if any of us actually met we wouldn't say half the things we do say. The internet is a bit like driving a car. We can say all manner of things that in a personal confrontation we would not say. Just think of it for a second. It will make no difference to us personally whatever may be decided by the authorities. We would still go on in our own lives speculating about this and that. But we are not actually fighting for our own lives, only our opinions. As my friend always says, "Opinions are like ar****ls, everybody has one". 

And some people fart louder than others.

[mike tesko]

Jackie got her knickers in a twist again as usual.  How can I answer your silly questions when I am away?

In any event I asked the question as to who fits the bill as a psychotic cold blooded murderer.  I believe Julie Mugford and 10 good men and women have already answered that one!   

John you posted twice and Hartley you posted twice. What do you mean you haven't said anything. Got yur knickers in a twist as well have we?

I didn't say I hadn't posted anything, I was informed I'd had a lot to say for myself,  I posted a joke and a reply to the likability of the relatives and that's all.

Yes my knickers are well and truly in a twist (I knew thongs were a bad idea), I'm clearly going nuclear in a mad rage confronting every post I disagree with, how dare people think they can have a different view to mine, it will come back and either do the ghost thing and haunt them or do the corgi thing and bite them on the ass, they will be sorry, etc, etc.

Come on guys get a grip.

Having said what I have said on this thread though. I think personally that it may be we are going down a bit of a blind alley. Some of the relatives, although they may have behaved in an inappropriate way with regard to the investigation and some of the things they said should not have been taken as seriously as they were, nevertheless I don't think any of them had any involvement in the murders.

Yeah a bit of character assassination never hurts though. 

-----------

You could be right, but they sure as hell made sure that Jeremy was put in the frame...

[grahameb]

Jackie got her knickers in a twist again as usual.  How can I answer your silly questions when I am away?

In any event I asked the question as to who fits the bill as a psychotic cold blooded murderer.  I believe Julie Mugford and 10 good men and women have already answered that one!   

John you posted twice and Hartley you posted twice. What do you mean you haven't said anything. Got yur knickers in a twist as well have we?

I didn't say I hadn't posted anything, I was informed I'd had a lot to say for myself,  I posted a joke and a reply to the likability of the relatives and that's all.

Yes my knickers are well and truly in a twist (I knew thongs were a bad idea), I'm clearly going nuclear in a mad rage confronting every post I disagree with, how dare people think they can have a different view to mine, it will come back and either do the ghost thing and haunt them or do the corgi thing and bite them on the ass, they will be sorry, etc, etc.

Come on guys get a grip.

Having said what I have said on this thread though. I think personally that it may be we are going down a bit of a blind alley. Some of the relatives, although they may have behaved in an inappropriate way with regard to the investigation and some of the things they said should not have been taken as seriously as they were, nevertheless I don't think any of them had any involvement in the murders.

Yeah a bit of character assassination never hurts though. 

-----------

You could be right, but they sure as hell made sure that Jeremy was put in the frame...

Yes I agree Mike. But I think Jackie was asking if they all had alibis? Not sure if their movements that night was ever investigated or established? Although it is usually a logical question the police would ask at any interview? "Where were you at such and such a time" etc.

[Hartley]

Jackie got her knickers in a twist again as usual.  How can I answer your silly questions when I am away?

In any event I asked the question as to who fits the bill as a psychotic cold blooded murderer.  I believe Julie Mugford and 10 good men and women have already answered that one!   

John you posted twice and Hartley you posted twice. What do you mean you haven't said anything. Got yur knickers in a twist as well have we?

I didn't say I hadn't posted anything, I was informed I'd had a lot to say for myself,  I posted a joke and a reply to the likability of the relatives and that's all.

Yes my knickers are well and truly in a twist (I knew thongs were a bad idea), I'm clearly going nuclear in a mad rage confronting every post I disagree with, how dare people think they can have a different view to mine, it will come back and either do the ghost thing and haunt them or do the corgi thing and bite them on the ass, they will be sorry, etc, etc.

Come on guys get a grip.

Having said what I have said on this thread though. I think personally that it may be we are going down a bit of a blind alley. Some of the relatives, although they may have behaved in an inappropriate way with regard to the investigation and some of the things they said should not have been taken as seriously as they were, nevertheless I don't think any of them had any involvement in the murders.

Yeah a bit of character assassination never hurts though. 

-----------

You could be right, but they sure as hell made sure that Jeremy was put in the frame...

Yes I agree Mike. But I think Jackie was asking if they all had alibis? Not sure if their movements that night was ever investigated or established? Although it is usually a logical question the police would ask at any interview? "Where were you at such and such a time" etc.

Yes, and if we could put differences of opinions aside for just a moment and stand in the neutral corner.

If they thought JB did it and it was looking like he was going to get away with it, then how else would you expect them to behave? Yes of course we can pick out inappropriate behaviour, from the relatives and from JB.
Perhaps they were desperate, but desperate to ensure JB didn't get away with it rather than desperate to have the inheritance themselves.

Perhaps the relatives did indeed plant evidence to frame JB; perhaps they framed JB, but in actual fact he was also guilty; or maybe they didn't frame him at all?

Either way as Grahame says, it doesn't make any difference to my life whatever happens, but we've all got an a*****e.

[grahameb]

Yes, and if we could put differences of opinions aside for just a moment and stand in the neutral corner.

If they thought JB did it and it was looking like he was going to get away with it, then how else would you expect them to behave? Yes of course we can pick out inappropriate behaviour, from the relatives and from JB.
Perhaps they were desperate, but desperate to ensure JB didn't get away with it rather than desperate to have the inheritance themselves.

Perhaps the relatives did indeed plant evidence to frame JB; perhaps they framed JB, but in actual fact he was also guilty; or maybe they didn't frame him at all?

Either way as Grahame says, it doesn't make any difference to my life whatever happens, but we've all got an a*****e.

Yes I agree. We must stand neutral sometimes and even examine our own theries at times. Because we can become so involved with our own opinions that there is always the danger of not seeing the wood for the trees. So I find it useful sometimes to put myself in the shoes of those who have a different opinion than mine to try and see where they are coming from. Yes I agree also that the thoughts of the relatives was not primarily that of getting an inheritance. I should think the shock of such an event would have been overwhelming to any ordinary person, let alone those who were directly related to them?