Everything gets garbled when people relay conversations. Nobody ever remembers them verbatim, they paraphrase. It's like chinese whispers.
Neither of us knows all of what was actually said in court.
She was probably just hedging her bets .
Would have been awkward if she left him and if he was acquitted and proved not guilty for example although who could blame her but now that a unanimous decision on his guilt is she really going to be known as someone associated with this monster .Although in saying that Kray seem to have arranged a marriage from inside prison . Certain types on woman seem to be attracted to certain types of male no matter what they are capable of . I doubt her family would approve of such a relationship and would she want to be alone for so long separated from her absentee boyfriend.
Absolutely A lot of it is common sense . Its not as if hes been framed or set up in anyway . Just the evidence shown and an obvious conclusion drawn to join the dots as it wereThe jury weren’t privy to the winks or the rumours or hearsay, but also heard all of the evidence in far more detail than we have.
And subsequently unanimously decided he was guilty.
Doesn’t that count for something?
I don't really know why you attach such importance to it. Everybody who had CCTV would have been asked to check it, if they hadn't already thought to do so. Toni's aunt is Janette's friend, it's quite natural that she would mention it to her. I daresay that Toni asked everyone she knew to do the same.Of course not.
But do you not think if the aunt of the girl that the accused was claiming murdered Alesha was specifically mentioned in relation to checking incriminating CCTV, at least one reporter might have picked up on it?
I don't really know why you attach such importance to it. Everybody who had CCTV would have been asked to check it, if they hadn't already thought to do so. Toni's aunt is Janette's friend, it's quite natural that she would mention it to her. I daresay that Toni asked everyone she knew to do the same.
I think his message to friends that morning says it all really. "found the guy that did it".
Doesn't even matter that he sent it before anyone knew she'd been murdered. Or that he said "guy" when he would go on to accuse a girl.
It's his arrogance and self-assuredness, and thinking he's too clever for anyone to suspect he'd write that if he was the culprit.
To me, at the age of 16, it smacks of a someone who is manipulative, enjoys a psychological game, has no empathy, and fails to see things from other people's perspectives - an innocent teenager isn't really going to think there's anything to laugh about after hearing shocking news of the death of a child on his backdoor step. IMO. I think most if not all of any age group would have been both stunned and scared that they lived in such close proximity to a heinous monster and only hours after they had been partying in the locality. It leaves a feeling of shock, numbness and absolute horror when something of this gravity happens. He was on a different plane, he found amusement after his deeds.
I don't really know why you attach such importance to it. Everybody who had CCTV would have been asked to check it, if they hadn't already thought to do so. Toni's aunt is Janette's friend, it's quite natural that she would mention it to her. I daresay that Toni asked everyone she knew to do the same.
He is quoted as saying he wanted to buy cannibas and sleep. Can only presume it was simply because he did't feel like it or some other ulterior motive that is undisclosedHas there been any indication as to why the friends and also the sister left at 12.30 but the convict didn't go with them?
I just do not see anything sinister there.You might well be right.
But I don’t think it sits quite right with what was said in court (or what was reported at least)
Which is that the mum checked the CCTV when she knew Alesha had gone missing. And we know she was alerted to that at about 7.30am by the commotion outside.
If she’s been directed specifically to check CCTV I feel she’d have mentioned it given the family connection.
Usually concurrently and backdated to tbe date of first remand.possibly, but that would depend on whether they run concurrently (at the same time) or consecutively (one after the other).
Usually concurrently and backdated to tbe date of first remand.
Quite possibly but would have taken more time at the very leastI think, with this being a particularly horrific crime, coupled with it taking place on a small island, they would have eventually found him, probably by process of elimination and if necessary, by taking voluntary dna samples from the most likely suspects.
Would his mother even have been allowed to quote on the case during a trial or are we to believe this happened after the trial . Not really relevant to case unless someone is trying to incriminate or implicate someone else in the abduction which has already been looked at and considered in the trial . If someone feels there was not due process the please feel free to raise it with the criminal justice system to allay their fears although in line with sleuthing you are entitled to state an opinion if you have one on here of eventsWe know it's not true because his defense would have brought it up.