Witheld Docs

[lookout]

I feel certain you know, withOUT being reminded, that those words are a blatant lie. You KNOW that both Caroline and I once believed in Jeremy's innocence, and thus, all the cant aimed at others' feet, and the total lack of logical thinking attached to it.

Come off it. It's no lie. You know full well that JM,the PRIME prosecution witness,along with the relatives helped put JB behind bars with their hearsay. So therefore you go along with all that they had to say because there's nothing else to go on.
Where would EP have been without them ? What did EP have on JB,except for USING the previous theft at Osea site ? Thieving doesn't amount to murdering.
Why weren't the jury shown JM's convictions ? Because EP were hard-up for a witness for the prosecution and if I remember rightly,a court won't entertain a person in the jury who's got/had convictions.

[Caroline]

Well seeing that you always believed the word of mouth of JM and the relatives,I will also reiterrate that I " know what I know " by word of mouth and would also swear on oath !

I always believed the relatives and Julie? Did I?

Lookout, I'm not interested in what you say or think you know. Funny your should mention 'swearing' - this place makes me swear a lot too! 

[Caroline]

Come off it. It's no lie. You know full well that JM,the PRIME prosecution witness,along with the relatives helped put JB behind bars with their hearsay. So therefore you go along with all that they had to say because there's nothing else to go on.
Where would EP have been without them ? What did EP have on JB,except for USING the previous theft at Osea site ? Thieving doesn't amount to murdering.
Why weren't the jury shown JM's convictions ? Because EP were hard-up for a witness for the prosecution and if I remember rightly,a court won't entertain a person in the jury who's got/had convictions.

I'll ignore your little rant at the beginning of your post. It's just sill nonsense.

Thieving doesn't amount to murdering but greed can and often does.

What convictions? I believe that Julie's life of crime was mentioned. The defense knew all about her involvement in the caravan park robbery and the bank fraud. They would also have known about her selling drugs for Jeremy.

[Jane]

Well seeing that you always believed the word of mouth of JM and the relatives,I will also reiterrate that I " know what I know " by word of mouth and would also swear on oath !

Come off it. It's no lie. You know full well that JM,the PRIME prosecution witness,along with the relatives helped put JB behind bars with their hearsay. So therefore you go along with all that they had to say because there's nothing else to go on.
Where would EP have been without them ? What did EP have on JB,except for USING the previous theft at Osea site ? Thieving doesn't amount to murdering.
Why weren't the jury shown JM's convictions ? Because EP were hard-up for a witness for the prosecution and if I remember rightly,a court won't entertain a person in the jury who's got/had convictions.

Lookout, the moment you believe you're being called a liar, you bristle and whinge, yet you CANNOT expect that what you have said of Caroline and me to be accepted without comment. We both stood with you in accusing Julie and the family of having agendas and ulterior motives, yet here you are throwing wild and untrue accusations at us. THINK before you speak may prevent such 'accidents'?

[lookout]

I'll ignore your little rant at the beginning of your post. It's just sill nonsense.

Thieving doesn't amount to murdering but greed can and often does.

What convictions? I believe that Julie's life of crime was mentioned. The defense knew all about her involvement in the caravan park robbery and the bank fraud. They would also have known about her selling drugs for Jeremy.

EP knew about JM's crime,but neither the court,nor the jury knew or else why was she given immunity before the trial ?? So that she could be used by EP ! I bet even the relatives weren't best pleased when they first found that out,although would it have mattered to them ? No. 
What would you think if drug-dealers/drug smugglers/cheque-fraudsters and thieves were all given immunity ?
You believe in JB's guilt,you should also believe that JM acted as accessory !!

Judging by " Matters of the Estate ",it certainly wasn't Jeremy who was greedy !

[lookout]

I'll ignore your little rant at the beginning of your post. It's just sill nonsense.

Thieving doesn't amount to murdering but greed can and often does.

What convictions? I believe that Julie's life of crime was mentioned. The defense knew all about her involvement in the caravan park robbery and the bank fraud. They would also have known about her selling drugs for Jeremy.

EP knew about JM's crime,but neither the court,nor the jury knew or else why was she given immunity before the trial ?? So that she could be used by EP ! I bet even the relatives weren't best pleased when they first found that out,although would it have mattered to them ? No. 
What would you think if drug-dealers/drug smugglers/cheque-fraudsters and thieves were all given immunity ?
You believe in JB's guilt,you should also believe that JM acted as accessory !!

Judging by " Matters of the Estate ",it certainly wasn't Jeremy who was greedy !

[Jane]

EP knew about JM's crime,but neither the court,nor the jury knew or else why was she given immunity before the trial ?? So that she could be used by EP ! I bet even the relatives weren't best pleased when they first found that out,although would it have mattered to them ? No. 
What would you think if drug-dealers/drug smugglers/cheque-fraudsters and thieves were all given immunity ?
You believe in JB's guilt,you should also believe that JM acted as accessory !!

Judging by " Matters of the Estate ",it certainly wasn't Jeremy who was greedy !

Would you be turning a hair about any of this if you thought Jeremy was guilty? OR would you be prepared to let a murderer/guilty person walk free because evidence given, by those you believe to be on the wrong side of the law, had helped convict them?

[lookout]

Would you be turning a hair about any of this if you thought Jeremy was guilty? OR would you be prepared to let a murderer/guilty person walk free because evidence given, by those you believe to be on the wrong side of the law, had helped convict them?

I neither think nor believe that Jeremy's guilty,so your question doesn't apply.

[Jane]

I neither think nor believe that Jeremy's guilty,so your question doesn't apply.

As I wasn't actually referring to Jeremy's crime in particular, but crimes -and whose/what evidence, as I feel certain you were aware, helps to convict- in general, your avoidance of the question/refusal to answer speaks volumes.

[lookout]

As I wasn't actually referring to Jeremy's crime in particular, but crimes -and whose/what evidence, as I feel certain you were aware, helps to convict- in general, your avoidance of the question/refusal to answer speaks volumes.

You asked " if I thought Jeremy was guilty "----------so I answered.

[Jane]

You asked " if I thought Jeremy was guilty "----------so I answered.

But as I referred to "A" -not "THE"- murderer/guilty person, you'd have known the question WASN'T Jeremy specific.

[lookout]

Would you be turning a hair about any of this if you thought Jeremy was guilty? OR would you be prepared to let a murderer/guilty person walk free because evidence given, by those you believe to be on the wrong side of the law, had helped convict them?

I wouldn't even be discussing a TRUE murderer !! If my thoughts were yours,I'm afraid I'd have better things to do.

[Jane]

I wouldn't even be discussing a TRUE murderer !! If my thoughts were yours,I'm afraid I'd have better things to do.

Keep it going. ANYTHING to avoid giving a straight answer, eh, Lookout? WHAT is it, I wonder, that you're to scared to admit?

[Steve_uk]

I would expect the pocketbook to exist, but contain nothing useful.

The point is: do the Campaign Team know what they need, are they flailing around in the dark or are there documents there which they don't know they need but do exist?

[Caroline]

EP knew about JM's crime,but neither the court,nor the jury knew or else why was she given immunity before the trial ?? So that she could be used by EP ! I bet even the relatives weren't best pleased when they first found that out,although would it have mattered to them ? No. 
What would you think if drug-dealers/drug smugglers/cheque-fraudsters and thieves were all given immunity ?
You believe in JB's guilt,you should also believe that JM acted as accessory !!

Judging by " Matters of the Estate ",it certainly wasn't Jeremy who was greedy !

You are wrong, it just shows how LITTLE you do know, the cheque book fraud and her part in the Osea road robbery were discussed in court.