Jeremy speaks to The Guardian about the referral of his case by the CCRC

[Jackiepreece]

So going by this article before she went to the police and was put in protective custody reporters were after her all the time for a story interesting so she would have money was going to be offered for a good story

[Tyler]

A good find that Abs.
So on the one hand,Julie was seeking legal advice regarding press harassment of her,
and subsequently goes on to accept payment in return for her story from these very people.
She states that she was in debt due to being a student,but that wasnt the incentive as she always pays her debts  ( or commits cheque fraud).
She says she made the police aware of the deal (what did they care,she had served her purpose and thats all that mattered to them)
But would I be wrong in saying that she denied any newspaper deal to the judge and jury at trial?
She is trying to evoke sympathy,but in fact it has exactly the opposite effect on me.

[grahameb]

Good work abs. +1 for that bit of research and no I haven't read that before. It does indicate quite clearly that there was such a story sold to the News of the World. I am willing to accept that she only made this "deal" with the newspaper through the advice of her solicitor.
My only problem is with the solicitors advice. Did he really think that this would stop the harassment of Julie? If he did then I can only conclude that this was ill advice indeed. Which was proved to be so as the "harassment" continued. Well we can believe one of two things here. (1) she is being genuine in what she writes and really thought the advice given to her by her lawyer would indeed stop the harassment. Or (2) That this is just an excuse to cover up the real reason she went to the papers? I choose to believe the former personally and give her the benefit of the doubt. But at the same time would like to emphasise that her solicitor was very short sighted and naive?

[Alias]

I think she got a solicitor to help her get the best deal possible, yep. I agree with you both, Tyler and Grahame! ++

[smiffy]

From that JM article;

" I would like to say that the money promise did not impact in any way on the evidence I gave at court. No amount of money would influence what I had to say in a court of law. I would not lie when swearing to tell the truth. I did not want to sell my story: it was part of the process to stop the media from relentlessly harassing me and my family"

This part of the statement appears to be a pack of lies.
I would like to say......(interpretation....this is not what is true but is what I want the reader to believe)

why all the use of the speculative "would" ...which is  future tense ....this indicates not true...



she should have used the word "DID"  instead of "would" in the second and third sentences.


No amount of money would influence what I had to say in a court of law.

"in a court of law" ...general comment....not specific...JM does not speak of what she DID SAY IN THAT COURT...IN THE TRIAL.. she could be talking of any court...this is wrong..she should have spoke of in the trial buit avoids doing this...she is being evasive . Nowhere in her claims does she state she did not lie in the trial.

JM is deceptive.

last sentence..blatant lie...she did want to sell her story...and gain from it...she offers a reason to try making her false claim of not wanting to her sell her story appear true...this is often a sign of deception.
Her claim should have stood on its own without an excuse.