Countdown to the September 2015 confession:

[guest154]

There is arleady evidence to show guilt, I agree with that Scip. I'm not convinced MD has anythnig too revealing... I always found his posts on the forum, slightly poor. Maybe he was holding back though.

[scipio_usmc]

how many murder cases have been settled by sombosy writting a book none that i can think of.

Jeremy recently claimed he is innocent but has no ability to prove it by refuting the evidence that establishes his guilt.

Obviously a book that argues in favor of his guilt will stress such evidence that jeremy is unable to refute.

His staunch supporters are aware of such evidence but choose to believe that even though he can't refute it that such evidence is somehow not what it seems and that he is in fact innocent. 

The expectation that such supporters will suddenly face he is guilty just because the same evidence they already ignore is posted in his book is silly.

Likwise, the expectation he will stop saying he is innocent but can't prove it and admit his guilt because the evidence is highlighted in yet another book is silly.

The same evidence that convicted him at trial is the same evidence he has always railed against publicly and during his appeals.  If he ever has a change of heart and admits his guilt it won't be as a result of a book. It will be something internal that makes him decide to do so.

[lookout]

The page of evidence I highlighted time and again that neither you nor any supporter has been able to dent.  Biased supporters like you simply dismiss such evidence but that just amounts to living in denial. It doesn't make it go away, you need to refute it in order to prevent it from establishing his guilt but you can't.

There's no evidence to dismiss ! Not that I can see anyway.

[scipio_usmc]

There's no evidence to dismiss ! Not that I can see anyway.

I posted a 30,000 word summary of the evidence that convicted him.  You relied, "such doesn't prove a thing in your eyes". That amounts to you simply dismissing the evidence.  Refuting it requires addressing each point and providing evidence to rebut it. Dismissing it means you just ignore it.

Saying you don't have to bother refuting it because you don't feel it is evidenc eof his guilt just amounts to a dismissal.

Since he was convicted based upon it that evidence has more significance than just coming from me. You have to refute it for him to be innocent in the eyes of the law.  Dismissing it doesn't make it go away or prevent it from making him guilty in the eyes of the law.

[Mr. Gee]

I posted a 30,000 word summary of the evidence that convicted him.  You relied, "such doesn't prove a thing in your eyes". That amounts to you simply dismissing the evidence.  Refuting it requires addressing each point and providing evidence to rebut it. Dismissing it means you just ignore it.

Saying you don't have to bother refuting it because you don't feel it is evidenc eof his guilt just amounts to a dismissal.

Since he was convicted based upon it that evidence has more significance than just coming from me. You have to refute it for him to be innocent in the eyes of the law.  Dismissing it doesn't make it go away or prevent it from making him guilty in the eyes of the law.

The reality is that he was convicted by a 10-2 verdict based entirely on his ex girlfriend's evidence (where she no independent witnesses to back her up) and the silencer evidence where again there were no independent witnesses to back up the relative's finding it. That evidence was the entire evidence that he was convicted on. Not on your explanation of the evidence. The jury's minds never even went into it as deeply as you have done. Your explanation of that evidence is only that, your explanation and nothing more. As the evidence stood in 1986 should not have been enough to convict him whether he as guilty or not.

[Neil]

Hello Neil

yes tyler posted to him when he came on the forum that she had read all his books and really enjoyed them.

Hi Susan, sorry, I've only just seen this.  Thanks for that.

[Jan]

"guilty in the eyes of the law. "


these are the important words .


Does not mean he is actually guilty.


But without time of deaths and every ambiguous statement and situation being "explained" away , then he does not stand a chance.

If EP have nothing to hide - release the files on Jm

And release the info in the boxes held under PII .  It only 200 boxes . Give one each to 200 volunteer law student and get them to sign a document saying they will only release the info to an independent person. Simples

[Alias]

"guilty in the eyes of the law. "


these are the important words .


Does not mean he is actually guilty.


But without time of deaths and every ambiguous statement and situation being "explained" away , then he does not stand a chance.

If EP have nothing to hide - release the files on Jm

And release the info in the boxes held under PII .  It only 200 boxes . Give one each to 200 volunteer law student and get them to sign a document saying they will only release the info to an independent person. Simples

It would be a nice gesture - it´s been almost thirty years after all!

[mertol22]

The reality is that he was convicted by a 10-2 verdict based entirely on his ex girlfriend's evidence (where she no independent witnesses to back her up) and the silencer evidence where again there were no independent witnesses to back up the relative's finding it. That evidence was the entire evidence that he was convicted on. Not on your explanation of the evidence. The jury's minds never even went into it as deeply as you have done. Your explanation of that evidence is only that, your explanation and nothing more. As the evidence stood in 1986 should not have been enough to convict him whether he as guilty or not.

This crops up from time to time and should even today be under consideration, a US court of law would have thrown it out back then and today , British justice is poor by any standards.

[tyler]

Hi Susan, sorry, I've only just seen this.  Thanks for that.

Hmmm,I have to confess that I mistook MD for another Paul Harrison that wrote a good book along with David Wilson. I havent as yet read any of the books written by MD/PH. Hope that isn't too confusing. 

[lookout]

 I wondered about that,tyler,as there is another PH. >>>>>>>>>>>is not confused 

[Adam]

I wondered about that,tyler,as there is another PH. >>>>>>>>>>>is not confused 

I offered you the chance to PM me after my 'Sheila on the night' thread. You politely rejected,  although my thread had showed it was impossible for Sheila to have committed the massacre. This was confirmed by Professor Bernard Knight. Jeremy accepted his findings and was asked by his lawyer who it could be if it was not Sheila. He said he 'did not know'.

There is a strong chance Jeremy will confess in September 2015. It will be a natural conclusion after a 30 year countdown.

If he does confess, my PM offer still stands. Not just to you, but to everyone.

[Mr. Gee]

I offered you the chance to PM me after my 'Sheila on the night' thread. You politely rejected,  although my thread had showed it was impossible for Sheila to have committed the massacre. This was confirmed by Professor Bernard Knight. Jeremy accepted his findings and was asked by his lawyer who it could be if it was not Sheila. He said he 'did not know'.

There is a strong chance Jeremy will confess in September 2015. It will be a natural conclusion after a 30 year countdown.

If he does confess, my PM offer still stands. Not just to you, but to everyone.

I bet you £100 he won't. Do we have a deal?

[lookout]

I bet you £100 he won't. Do we have a deal?

I'll bet another £100--------yes ?? Name the date !!

[Adam]

I'll bet another £100--------yes ?? Name the date !!

A thank you for my post 116 would be nice. From both of you.