Actually, it ISN'T about JB. It's about "Murder, Mystery And My Family" which I'd hoped would be an interesting segway from JB as there's so little to say about it, but you hi-jacked it with your first post and dragged it right back to JB -you didn't so much lose the point of the thread, as bury it.
However, had you asked a straightforward question, I'd have given you a straightforward answer, but every question you asked had an 'attachment' ie there ARE hidden documents, there ARE documents 'KNOWN' to be advantageous to Jeremy. If I'd been debating with an intelligent person that person would have formed the questions differently. Had that person asked me "IF there are documents hidden which could have been advantageous..............." I'd have answered.
I think you maybe the wrong person to accuse others of lacking in intelligence. That, of anyone prepared to say someone is innocent -OR indeed, guilty- on nothing but gut instinct, has to be questionable.
So it's alright for SJ to say that he had a gut instinct,but because it's me it's different ?
Anyway,neither you nor anyone else would understand or even TRY to understand why I've said JB is innocent.
I used a psychological stance when I first saw the case in 1985 and KNOWING that JB would be charged pretty well from day one,I followed his movements and manner and drew my own conclusions from thereon. To all,he was the OBVIOUS character in all this but my mind told me otherwise.
The long drawn-out case as it was and still is to my way of thinking is an unnecessary evil in my mind and only sets out to remind us that much deeper thought is needed in working out these cases.
The programmes shown give an insight into how crimes/murders are solved and are an excellent way of showing how they can be solved by two very clever barristers through reading,studying and being thorough in their findings. A modern day look at sentencing which is brought up to date but sadly there are still as many MOJ's as there were hangings,an estimated 800.
We now know why Sheila had no blood on her nightdress ? So why were police looking through JB's clothes hoping to find blood when it's the assailant who's blood-free ?
Nevill's clothing was also blood-free wasn't it ? Although guilters would have said he'd worn his garments as opposed to him not having worn them.
The programme leaves you with all kinds of ideas,but for me where I don't see JB at the scene,it means nothing and only involves those who were present after JB left for home.