The excellent defence team hired in 1985 immediately realised and privately agreed the case was going to be extremely difficult to win. This belied the outwardly confident and positive Jeremy.
Experts were hired who unfortunately failed to assist the defences efforts to show Sheila could have committed the massacre. A not so 'confident & positive' Jeremy could only say 'I don't know' when his defence team asked who else it could be if it wasn't Sheila.
Jeremy bravely took the stand at trial. Realising that the evidence against him was substantial and there was nothing to lose. His charm and demeanour would make him look respectable and nothing like a brutal murderer. Whether this convinced the two female jurors to vote 'not guilty', as Stan Jones says, no one knows.
Unfortunately Jeremy was also unconvincing at trial. Repeatedly being told to speak up by the judge. And admitting things that helped incriminate him further. Culminating in increasingly short/flippant answers and telling the prosecutors 'that is what you have to establish'. See the 'Jeremy's court testimony' thread.
The judges summing up of the evidence and testimony knocked the defence's case further. But the judge can only summarize on the evidence presented at court.
Jeremy remained outwardly confident prior to the verdict. Complaining to his lawyers about the NOTW figure, he had negotiated upon his expected acquittal.
However, such was the weight of evidence, the relatives were confident of a guilty verdict being reached quickly. Robert Boutflour complaining the jury were taking hours, rather than minutes to return a guilty verdict. The jury were still very quick in reaching their verdict after such a long trial.
Stan Jones said Jeremy showed no emotion or surprise when 'guilty' was announced. Probably because Jeremy knew the truth and had sat through the compelling evidence against him. His gamble of taking the stand, having mixed results.
Do people agree the trial brutally highlighted Jeremy's guilt ?
