IN MY OPINION, give the huge scale of evidence in this case, if jb is indeed innocent then he needs a far bigger legal team than that provided by Simon McKay. People seem to have the perception that he is some kind of miracle worker who will simply find the evidence to secure jb's freedom.
Let's get in the real world, as it doesn't work anywhere near like that. It's all very well saying jb's previous legal teams have failed him but i don't think people appreciate the sheer scale of the case.
The campaign team or this website aren't going to free jb from jail. IF he is innocent, then REAL, TANGIBLE evidence is required. I still haven't seen any.
It's all well and good debating how the investigation was flawed, trial unfair, evidence weak.........that now means nothing. For jb to overturn his conviction he needs NEW evidence which points to his innocence. It is not enough for him to show that they cannot prove him guilty.
If people on this website genuinely want to try to 'make a difference' if they believe jb is innocent then consider what they can do. eg. jb obviously needs funds, but fundraising for a convicted child killer is not easy. Publicity, high profile support etc. This has all been discussed before but v v v little appears to have been done.
As things stand i still haven's seen anything tangible that point me to jb's innocence despite repeated claims. IF these claims are true It's time for people who have made such claims to stand up and be counted otherwise jb will remain where he is until his death.
A bigger legal team can work faster but a small practice can stioll be up to the task.
I am a realist. Realistically there is no hope at all of finding any documents that will help clear Jeremy. The defense basically hopes and prays police framed Jeremy and that they set out right away to do it. What documents could realistically exist that would demonstrate such? There are none.
Most documented MOJs feature changed testimony and other verbal admissions of wrongdoing. It doesn't matter whether you are a big firm or little firm the only way that would happen is if people decide to come clean. I doubt anyone would drastically change their story and to be honest don't really see anything that police could admit to having done that would clear Jeremy if they did come clean.
Police initially blamed Sheila, thus would not have hid bloody clothing she wore over her gown as she killed everyone or other such evidence to conceal her actions. They would have had such evidence processed to support their view of her guilt.
The biggest problem facing any defense is that all the evidence points to Jeremy's guilt and there is realistically no way to refute such evidence using existing testimony or other documents.
Only a drastic change in testimony that amounts to a bombshell admission could do so but a bombshell admission might not even be credible if it makes no sense and no evidence to support it were to materialize.
The allegation from Jeremy supporters is that police did things right away to frae Jeremy and yet the evidence indicates that for several weeks the police believed Sheila did it. Only after Julie came forward with her tale and after the lab fully processed the evidence finding that Sheila was shot while sitting up then moved flat after her death, shot with the moderator attached and then the killer put it away and had no GSR or elevated lead levels so clearly could not have killed herself did police change their theory of the crime.
Jeremy's supporters are being extremely unrealistic alleging police immediately set out to conceal evidence and frame Jeremy which of course is not true. Take for instance Reader who keeps insisting PC West decided to conceal from Jeremy that his father had called in case police wanted to later blame Jeremy so this way Nevill's call could be completely hidden and it would not be able to be used by Jeremy as part of his defense. These kind of claims where police set out to distort the very second Jeremy called are absurd.
Other than a bombshell change in testimony only a major scientific breakthrough could result in the conviction being overturned. For instance proof that blood was planted in the moderator. If the blood was planted though it was done so expertly there is no way to prove it was planted through science it would require a credible bombshell admission by those who did it explaining when and how.
Aside from trying to bother witnesses to see if they will change their story- and they can refuse all contact from the appellate lawyers if they choose they don't have to correspond if they don't want to- there is little a defense team can do.
The only other thing that can be done is to have experts try to speak to Vanezis more about the damage he saw from the fatal wound that indicated to him it was a contact wound and try to figure out a way to establish it was not a contact wound.
But such could and should have been done at trial. You lose all arguments you fail to make at trial so it would be hard to raise such on appeal unless new science were involved in questoning his assessment and it would have to be pretty strong evidence that it definitely was not a contact wound.
The implication of such would be to argue such proves the blood in the moderator was June and Nevill's. That means for all of Jeremy's claims to be true and Sheila to be the killer she had to go to the closet to get the moderator and attach it before attacking anyone. Then after killing everyone she removed it and put it away in the closet. Why would she do that? It conflicts with her being in the throes of a crazy rage. She also had to have decided that though 30 bullets remained in the kitchen supply she had been using, to go to the closet to grab 5-7 bullets more. That makes no sense. Then there is still the question of how she could fial to get blood spatter from the victims on her clothing, especially spatter from Nevill as he was beaten, how she woudl not get her prints in the blood on the weapon and how her clothing could fail to get even a single particle of GSR or hwo she coudl move her body flat after death.
So saying it was June and Nevill's blood is still not going to convince a court that Jeremy is innocent.
For Jeremy to be innocent requires a conspiracy on a grand scale AND a great number of extremely unlikely things to have occurred. The chances of such are basically nil and the chance of finding a way to prove it even less. The size of the firm isn't the problem the task is.
