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

[grahameb]

I accept that grahame but that doesn't mean he didn't do it.  Whether he is a nice chappie now is totally irrelevant to his conviction.

We are not all on here to accrue brownie points like besotted Jackie.

Well neither am I John. I'm totally independent on what I think. Why should you even begin to assume that I am here for that? There you are again. Is it just your way, or do you like to write snyde remarks all the time just for the sake of it. You seem to think that anyone who doesn't think like you is stupid. Then when someone picks you up on it you cry, "There, don't they get abusive when they are opposed". Or words to that effect.,

[paulg]

I accept that grahame but that doesn't mean he didn't do it.  Whether he is a nice chappie now is totally irrelevant to his conviction.

We are not all on here to accrue brownie points like besotted Jackie.

Well neither am I John. I'm totally independent on what I think. Why should you even begin to assume that I am here for that? There you are again. Is it just your way, or do you like to write snyde remarks all the time just for the sake of it. You seem to think that anyone who doesn't think like you is stupid. Then when someone picks you up on it you cry, "There, don't they get abusive when they are opposed". Or words to that effect.,

I don't think he assumed that you was here for that, why have you assumed that?

[John]

I accept that grahame but that doesn't mean he didn't do it.  Whether he is a nice chappie now is totally irrelevant to his conviction.

We are not all on here to accrue brownie points like besotted Jackie.

Well neither am I John. I'm totally independent on what I think. Why should you even begin to assume that I am here for that? There you are again. Is it just your way, or do you like to write snyde remarks all the time just for the sake of it. You seem to think that anyone who doesn't think like you is stupid. Then when someone picks you up on it you cry, "There, don't they get abusive when they are opposed". Or words to that effect.,

I didn't mean that was your objective Grahame, just pointing out what that some pro Jeremy posters are obsessed and cannot see the wood for the trees as Hartley posted earlier today.

But they do get abusive, I never abuse anyone but will retaliate when attacked, that is the difference.

Today alone Jackie has called posters thick, liars, and god knows what else.  Just goes to highlight her own insecurities.

I am still quite open minded as to the Bamber case and welcome others views. What I cannot stand is misinformation and obvious deceptions aimed at making Jeremy look like some Saint when from all we know he most certainly wasn't that.

[Jackiepreece]

John you are off again questioning Ngb posts as well I look forward to expert opinion on here and we are lucky that such knowledgable people post on this forum Ngb + 1 and Grahame you always amaze me how level headed you are with Johns insults I just cannot stand it when people posts lies as if they were facts

[John]

What are you on about Jackie?  He said he didn't know any case and I have pointed to Sion Jenkins who had a trial and two retrials....simples!!

Look, I will even repeat it for you...

...I am not aware of any case where that has happened.  I suspect the only situation in which a further trial would take place following two trials resulting in a hung jury would be if compelling new evidence came to light immediately after the last trial which assisted the prosecution and had not previously been available.

You shouldn't posts lies as facts then Jackie.

Everything I have stated has already been given in evidence, maybe you should do a bit of reading up on the facts Jackie?

[jon]

What are you on about Jackie?  He said he didn't know any case and I have pointed to Sion Jenkins who had a trial and two retrials....simples!!

You shouldn't posts lies as facts then Jackie.

Everything I have stated has already been given in evidence, maybe you should do a bit of reading up on the facts Jackie?

He had a trial , conviction squashed , then two retrials , didnt he ?

[John]

So does anyone honestly believe that that could happen in Jeremy's case?

[jon]

So does anyone honestly believe that that could happen in Jeremy's case?

I think the point what was being made , was that after two hung juries , you wouldnt get a third   trial , NGB was a barrister i believe so i do think he would know !!

[John]

Yes, as occurred in the Jenkins case where he was indeed convicted, cleared, retried twice resulting in two hung juries and then acquitted...I don't know why this is so difficult for people to understand. It isn't rocket science.

And btw, a Barrister is not an expert...try QC.

[jon]

Yes, as occurred in the Jenkins case where he was indeed convicted, cleared, retried twice resulting in two hung juries and then acquitted...I don't know why this is so difficult for people to understand. It isn't rocket science.

And btw, a Barrister is not an expert...try QC.

How is a QC an expert , i could show you many barristers better advocates than some QC'S !!

[Hartley]

Yes, as occurred in the Jenkins case where he was indeed convicted, cleared, retried twice resulting in two hung juries and then acquitted...I don't know why this is so difficult for people to understand. It isn't rocket science.

I don't know either. I only mentioned that it was a possibility, a system is in place to allow it. A hung jury would not have proven JB's innocence, he would not have "walked free" without having to go through at least one retrial.

It doesn't matter anyway, he was actually convicted.

[grahameb]

I accept that grahame but that doesn't mean he didn't do it.  Whether he is a nice chappie now is totally irrelevant to his conviction.

No I wasn't commenting on his conviction John. I was just saying that everyone is still judging his character on how he was in 1985 and before. Come to think of it we all tend to think the same about the rest of the family. The only ones who haven't changed are those who are dead, poor souls. But we all change and if Jeremy was innocent (as I personally believe he is) then he has probably grown up a great deal. It is his character that people seem to judge and because his character was bad they seem to think he must have done it. His character is brought up regularly here. But whatever he was like back then it has no bearing on what he is now.
I find this a worrying thing about the police as well. That they assume, once a crook always a crook and every time theres a crime in that area they go round that persons house to question them.
People change, you've changed I've changed. Why do we still assume JB hasn't changed? Excepting his conviction of course.

[grahameb]

So does anyone honestly believe that that could happen in Jeremy's case?

I think the point what was being made , was that after two hung juries , you wouldnt get a third   trial , NGB was a barrister i believe so i do think he would know !!

I didn't know he was a barrister?

[grahameb]

Yes, as occurred in the Jenkins case where he was indeed convicted, cleared, retried twice resulting in two hung juries and then acquitted...I don't know why this is so difficult for people to understand. It isn't rocket science.

I don't know either. I only mentioned that it was a possibility, a system is in place to allow it. A hung jury would not have proven JB's innocence, he would not have "walked free" without having to go through at least one retrial.

It doesn't matter anyway, he was actually convicted.

Even if he is successful in an appeal it won't prove his innocence.

[jon]

So does anyone honestly believe that that could happen in Jeremy's case?

I think the point what was being made , was that after two hung juries , you wouldnt get a third   trial , NGB was a barrister i believe so i do think he would know !!

I didn't know he was a barrister?

He said so on here once , the jury in Sion Jenkins first retrial were 9 - 3 guilty !!