you have not given any evidence that you are innocent of the murders jerry...?
who do people prove innocence of things they did not do?
silly point eh...
its for the prosecution to prove guilt which they fail to do as the prosecution case is a huge pack of lies .
That is illogical....... Jeremy was found guilty by a jury who heard both the defence and prosecution cases.
At the time of the original trial the prosecution won the case.
It is now up to Jeremy to establish an unfair trial by due process. In so doing he cannot use evidence that was available at the time of the original trial.
It is no good just stating the prosecutions case was a pack of lies as this statement as it stands is unfounded without evidence to back it up.
That is what all this is about.
Do you think this is fair CE. One arm up his back.
You are happy to go along with the prosecution, but disregard any counter arguments.
You come across as someone who believes the cops would not lie.
You are so wrong. How many times has the police beem caught in a lie.
my daughter was going out with a cop and I can tell you they close ranks
I will not go into details, but suffice to say they will make the crime fit the details.
In my mind the police are corrupt. and will do anything to secure a conviction, I hope you are never in a position where you need the police.
Read Mikes story, Do you not see that the story was cobbled together, and that was just for burgulary.
Stop thinking that the police are these nice people.
By the way you midnight smiters F*** off, and grow up. This is a mature site, and not for you babies.
Cliff
Thank you for your reply.
I was merely pointing out how it is and where Jeremy is in terms of the law as poor as that due process may be.
I have posted on here that I do not beleive Jeremy would be found guilty if his trial, as it was heard at the time of the original trial, was transposed to now.
As to whether our judicial system is fair and always finds those who are guilty to be guilty and those who are innocent to be innocent I do not beleive that is the case. Unfortunately it is the system we have and that is a seperate debate.
As to going along with the prosecution I try to analyse both stand points from where we are at the moment given the conviction.
My personal belief - it is extremely unlikely there is a hitman or a other shooter. This is because of the initial details contained in Jeremy's telephone call to the Police which currently is one of the only points which remains uncontested by both sides.
I beleive the guilty party is either Jeremy or Sheila.
In consequence in the extremely unlikey event of there being a hitman or other shooter, in my opinion, Sheila was not involved with a hitman or other shooter in murdering her family etc. To quantify this a hitman or other shooter implies premeditation and if Sheila murdered her family as originally suspected then it was a spur of the moment killing spree. In my opinion, a hitman or other shooter being involved implicates Jeremy as being involved in some way in the murdering of his family. in which case he is not entirely innocent.
With regard to the comments about me coming across as someone who does not beleive the police do not / or are not capable of lying........ I must be giving a very wrong impression. I know the Police, as well as we all are, are very capable of lying. It is a feature of human nature. I know also the Police will close ranks to cover each other up etc. Agian this is an element of human nature in a pack / group mentality........... us and them.
And Cliff just for the record.......... 'it was not me gov'........... I have never used the smite feature.
