Brett Collins' credibility

Started by Erik Narramore, January 31, 2022, 04:05:06 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Erik Narramore

"He just had to click his fingers and cocaine would appear, ya know..."

"He was in the men's toilets, covered in cocaine, just help yourself...."

Of course, Brett.

"He pulled a big bag of diamonds out.  All cut diamonds.  He showed me this big bag that he'd collected from his 95 year old grandmother, she had a big safe full of jewellery from the old days, and he showed me this and he'd picked out all the diamonds and tiaras.  He stole those.  She had rooms packed with antiques and stuff and she never went in the safe to check on jewellery but he knew..."

Is he referring to Mabel Speakman?  Can this be verified?
"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

If it's all just gossip from Brett, then I think that's the end of the discussion.  If valuable jewellery - diamonds, no less - were stolen, it would be reported to police on discovery, and Jeremy would be questioned, even if on remand awaiting trial for the murder charges.  If there was no police investigation, and no allegation from the relatives, then I don't see what there is to discuss.
"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

Zak Beresford

The problem is even if there was diamond thefts they were confident that he was going to be convicted of x5 murder and when in comparison the thefts fall into insignificance.

In their eyes he was going to jail for life.


Erik Narramore

Quote from: Zak Beresford on November 20, 2022, 11:08:24 AMThe problem is even if there was diamond thefts they were confident that he was going to be convicted of x5 murder and when in comparison the thefts fall into insignificance.

In their eyes he was going to jail for life.

That's not the point.  If such thefts really had taken place, the family would have reported it and there would be a record of a police investigation.  It would not just be ignored.  Apart from which, they could not be certain he was going to prison for life.  That was very much up in the air.  Right up to when the jury foreman stood up on 29th. October 1986, there were some who had sat through the trial who seriously thought he would be acquitted and walk.
"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