Why would he?

[grahameb]

I am afraid I have done a lot more research than you.

Which is why you spend all you're time fire fighting. Making excuses and trying to justify the mountain of  incriminating forensic and circumstantial evidence highlighting Jeremy's guilt.

I doubt it mate? I you weren't even born when I started my research into the case then you were certainly running around in nappies.

[Adam]

I am  agreeing and its obvious which way the books are biased that Adam has read.

Sometimes it is obvious of the bias just from the title.

Have you read the book. Or any books on the case ?

[grahameb]

Have you read the book. Or any books on the case ?

Adam come back when you've grown in wisdom (when you're old) then we will consider your opinion valid.

[Jan]

Have you read the book. Or any books on the case ?

which one are you referring to in particular?

And you obviously have not read my posts if you ask that question.

[scipio_usmc]

I doubt it mate? I you weren't even born when I started my research into the case then you were certainly running around in nappies.

Why are you wrong about just about every detail you post then?  If you did so much research and yet are always wrong it means your research was dreadfully incompetent.

From your claim Ann Eaton never specified the blood in the panties was in the crotch area, to your claim there is absolute evidence that Nevill called Jeremy the night of the murders you have been wrong.

[scipio_usmc]

There is no such thing as an unbiased book, the writer can't help (no matter how hard he/she tries) from influencing how the information is presented. Even history books are biased, depending on the source of the info.

That is not entirely true.  A write can write a book that objectively covers all details and leav eit to the reader to decide what is the truth but few writers have the discipline or desire to do such for a variety of reasons including that such books usually garner less attention than something provocative.

[scipio_usmc]

if you were paying a hit man I dont think you would be stupid enough to go and draw the money out of your own account straight after the event, don't forget he had been planning for a year so he would have the cash stashed away somewhere so I think this whole argument is nonsense.

The only way I can see Jeremy having said any of the hit man stuff ( although of course he claims it is fabrication) is if Julie had started probing him accusingly and he ( on the verge of dumping her) thought was a silly young woman ( as he was innocent ) and started making sarcastic comments which he never thought she would take seriously.

But I still don't believe innocent or guilty that he said any of it. It just does not make any sense at all.

Especially if the relationship was on the wane you would not want to give anything away to implicate yourself . If he did all that planning , with the phone detail and everything else that was involved , you are not going to risk everything at the last minute.

There are people who have done just that hsortly before or after a crime and that is why police always check because even though many are not so foolish some are. 

[grahameb]

Why are you wrong about just about every detail you post then?  If you did so much research and yet are always wrong it means your research was dreadfully incompetent.

From your claim Ann Eaton never specified the blood in the panties was in the crotch area, to your claim there is absolute evidence that Nevill called Jeremy the night of the murders you have been wrong.

It's called "age" sonny jim and failing memory which comes along when some become old. Add to that the weariness of life.
Now I find I cannot remember things both long term and short term. Yes that's one reason I make mistakes sometimes.  What's your excuse for being arrogant and rude?

[grahameb]

That is not entirely true.  A write can write a book that objectively covers all details and leav eit to the reader to decide what is the truth but few writers have the discipline or desire to do such for a variety of reasons including that such books usually garner less attention than something provocative.

I very much doubt it. It is a bit like playing chess. You are bound to prefer one side or the other somewhere down the line. Every writer must put his mark on a book somewhere. We all without exception are biased to some degree or other, even if we come to that bias through facts obtained. That is why when someone on here calls the other person biased there is always an element of truth in it whether that person denies it or not.

[lookout]

It's called "age" sonny jim and failing memory which comes along when some become old. Add to that the weariness of life.
Now I find I cannot remember things both long term and short term. Yes that's one reason I make mistakes sometimes.  What's your excuse for being arrogant and rude?

Hey,age doesn't come in to it, Grahame.. I can still multi-task-------laugh,,cough,,sneeze,,fart and pee,all at the same time,so there.

[grahameb]

There are people who have done just that hsortly before or after a crime and that is why police always check because even though many are not so foolish some are.

Take it from me sonny jim most are just plain dumb.

[scipio_usmc]

It's called "age" sonny jim and failing memory which comes along when some become old. Add to that the weariness of life.
Now I find I cannot remember things both long term and short term. Yes that's one reason I make mistakes sometimes.  What's your excuse for being arrogant and rude?

I'm not arrogant, peopel who can't stand being proved wrong call those who prove them wrong constantly arrogant.

In the meantime if you know your memroy is not great because of age then why don't you actually read a statement before claiming a statement says something or accusing others of being wrong?

[grahameb]

I'm not arrogant, peopel who can't stand being proved wrong call those who prove them wrong constantly arrogant.

In the meantime if you know your memroy is not great because of age then why don't you actually read a statement before claiming a statement says something or accusing others of being wrong?

I think most people on this forum will say you are arrogant. It isn't what you say that upsets members it's the way you say it. Why should I worry about whether you're right or wrong? It doesn't make sense. Your very words betray you. The fact that you keep insisting that you are the be all and end all when it comes to the truth shows that you are indeed arrogant. You misinterpret people who insist that you are arrogant thinking that they don't like you because you are telling the truth.
Unfortunately that is just you walking in the vanity of your own mind.
Listen let me give you a piece of advice. When 3 people tell you that you are sick, lie down ecause they are probably right.
No one called Hartley arrogant and he posts the truth about stuff. Surely that must be some kind of litmus test for your own attitude?

[scipio_usmc]

Take it from me sonny jim most are just plain dumb.

If most criminals are dumb enough to pay a hitman by drawing a large sum from their bank account around the time of the event then there would be more instances of police catching criminals for displaying sheer stupidity.  My post that some are that dumb but not a majority was accurate. 

But since you think most are that stupid why do you doubt Jeremy was not smart enough to know about drawback?  That actually requires a lot of skill to know about not even the level of stupidity you attribute to most.

If you actually sincenrely held the beliefs you have expressed including your belief that he would not have taken out the gun to shoot rabbits then you should believe he is guilty.

It seems you just say crap you don't mean and just give Jeremy a free pass for no rational reason.  You repeatedly have stated you will neve rbelieve he did it but have no raitonal reaosn why you are guided purely by bias not facts when it comes to making that call.