Did Jeremy need in-depth knowledge of Sheila's medical problems to stage it?

Started by Erik Narramore, January 29, 2022, 07:45:06 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

Erik Narramore

January 29, 2022, 07:45:06 AM
I don't see the point that the pro-Jeremy side are making here.  He knew she was ill.  He knew she could 'go crazy'.  He knew she was violent.  This knowledge does not make him guilty, but it was enough to form the kernel of a plan, if he is guilty.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#1
January 29, 2022, 07:45:26 AM
Knowing she was a "nutter", that provided the backcloth to his staging plan for Sheila.  For context, the reason this conversation started is that some pro-Jeremy people are trying to suggest he would have needed in-depth knowledge of Sheila's condition to do this.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams

Erik Narramore

#2
January 29, 2022, 07:45:58 AM
On the other hand, he didn't live with Sheila and hadn't throughout the relevant period of time, so there was no reason for him to know much beyond the basics.
"If the accusation is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the man accused in the dock, then by law he is entitled to be acquitted, because that is the way our rules work.  It is no concession to give him the benefit of the doubt. He is entitled by law to a verdict of Not Guilty." - R v Adams
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions