Letter Trail - Wallet

[Jane]

I would certainly never disclose on this forum any conversations I have had with Neil on any updates on this case.  Neil has helped Jeremy in the past and I am certain Neil would help Jeremy in the future if Jeremy asked for his help in the future.  I always let Neil know if I know of anything that might help Jeremy.
I have made it absolutely crystal clear in the past that I do not believe Neil would help Jeremy if he thought he was guilty.
If Roch changes his stance so be it. He says he is going to leave the forum anyway. Maybe he should stay and join Hartley and Co
I certainly have no intention of trying to change your mind.
You believe Mugford, Anne Eaton, David and Robert Boutflour.
I don't
Once again Jeremy answered every question I put to him immediately on the phone and I must have asked him a lot more than Caroline

You're avoiding my question! What has any of the above to do with Caroline's correspondence with Jeremy? WHY are you suggesting that Neil has any part of it. With the greatest respect to him, it has nothing to do with him and I feel certain he'd agree with me on this. It seems little more to me than you wishing to highlight whatever relationship you think you have with him/have previously had with Jeremy and makes me think it's an attempt to outdo Caroline in what you seem to see as being a who likes whom best contest.

[lookout]

Not sure what you mean by this.  I am 100% that Sheila committed the killings.  Not a doubt in my mind.

There is no doubt in my mind either and because of that I don't feel that I've anything further to say.

[Jane]

There is no doubt in my mind either and because of that I don't feel that I've anything further to say.

I eagerly anticipate that, Lookout. It warms the cockles of my heart to hear it

[Roch]

There is no doubt in my mind either and because of that I don't feel that I've anything further to say.

That's kind of where I am - but I'm struggling with the not having anything further to say bit.

[lookout]

I eagerly anticipate that, Lookout. It warms the cockles of my heart to hear it

Perhaps you could practice the same method,as afterall,what more is there for you to say about a man who's in prison ? He's where you want him to be,so it doesn't make much sense does it ?

[JackiePreece]

And you remind me of a one issue poster in the same vein as Stephanie Hall, though to be fair to her during her time here she did at least evolve somewhat by perusing the archive and library.

You are obviously not aware of what I have done in this case

Introduced Ngb to JB
Introduced Simon McKay to JB
Got Mark Williams Thomas to take an interest in the case and subsequently make a documentary

Do not compare me to SH and never underestimate the work I personally do on twitter

[JackiePreece]

Not sure what you mean by this.  I am 100% that Sheila committed the killings.  Not a doubt in my mind.

I thought you said JB could be lying about the wallet
 You sound like you think it's an important point in the case??

[Jane]

Perhaps you could practice the same method,as afterall,what more is there for you to say about a man who's in prison ? He's where you want him to be,so it doesn't make much sense does it ?

Doesn't stop it being a fascinating and tantalising subject, though. From a psychological aspect, it offers endless insights.

[JackiePreece]

I'm not a celebrity, there is no need to keep name dropping me. I hope I'm not the subject of your communications with JB, no, I doubt he even knows I exist.

Plus if Roch ever changes stance, I'll have to do the same, I think we both enjoy arguing with each other. 

Hopefully you might turn out to be a celebrity

[Roch]

I thought you said JB could be lying about the wallet
 You sound like you think it's an important point in the case??

No, I expressed that Caroline was telling the truth when she stated that he answered some of her questions but failed to answer the wallet question. I went on to express that he apologized for not answering the question and he provided some reasoning and extenuating circumstances as to why he hadn't answered.

There is no way to know who is telling truth between Jeremy and Ann.

I don't believe Jeremy was at the farm when the killings occurred. I also know (not just believe) 100% that Sheila was involved in the killings.  So it is not an important aspect for me personally.

[Adam]

There is no doubt in my mind either and because of that I don't feel that I've anything further to say.

The trouble is you can't explain how Sheila committed the massacre. And Roch just says 'Sheila shot them but I can't explain the phone calls'.

[maggie]

Have removed posts from this thread, usual reason ie.  personally abusive posts.....

[Caroline]

No, I expressed that Caroline was telling the truth when she stated that he answered some of her questions but failed to answer the wallet question. I went on to express that he apologized for not answering the question and he provided some reasoning and extenuating circumstances as to why he hadn't answered.

There is no way to know who is telling truth between Jeremy and Ann.

I don't believe Jeremy was at the farm when the killings occurred. I also know (not just believe) 100% that Sheila was involved in the killings.  So it is not an important aspect for me personally.

Yes, he did Roch, two years later and gave conflicting reasons for not answering in the first place. Point is, I told the truth.

[Roch]

Yes, he did Roch, two years later and gave conflicting reasons for not answering in the first place. Point is, I told the truth.

I think that everything Jeremy said or did was interpreted by Ann with a sinister bent.  She had already earmarked him as a 'threat' prior to the killings. 

I also think that Stan Jones' job was to go back over everything that had been said & done and work with prosecution witnesses like Ann & Julie, to mould its meaning in to something sinister. 

[Lucy522]

I have read the letters without the redacted parts.  Over the course of the letters, after having failed to answer Caroline's question/s about the wallet, Jeremy claims to not have had Caroline's letter with him, when he originally replied to her questions.

He claims that this is the case nine times out of ten, when replying to people's letters.  He either claims to have memorised Caroline's questions or to have provided his answers to her from memory (his actual remark on this is ambiguous). 

After answering some of Caroline's questions - he does express he will answer other questions when he gets back on the wing - but he doesn't clarify which questions he is referring to.


Hi roch, is it plausible maybe that Jeremy had seen Neville or been with him when he did a transaction for this money?
At one point he claims to have not remembered the wallet question when writing his original letter to Caroline -  but he notes having remembered the answer to wallet question as being either 'no or not important'.

He attempts to provide reasoning for this and some extenuating circs.  He makes reference to the volume of letters and cards he receives, especially after a TV program (presumably about the case). He claims that for the most part, it is only he himself who replies to people's letters / cards.

He claims to be totally convinced that he was framed by police and relatives and he expresses that (because of this) there are some questions in letters he receives that he personally feels are unimportant.  He attempts to apologise for having treated the wallet question in this manner, conceding that he was flippant about it, when from Caroline's point of view it was obviously an important question.

He claimes that DS Stan Jones and Ann Eaton made up hundreds of things that he (Jeremy) is supposed to have said.  He claims to have not known the exact amount in his dad's wallet - but he claims to have known that it was standard practice for his dad to carry a few hundred quid on him in his wallet.

So it is true that he did not answer Caroline's question or avoided her question (depending upon which way this is looked at).  He then goes on to try and provide some reasoning as to why this lack of response occurred.