Why Jeremy would not choose a wetsuit

[Mr. Gee]

I have explained this before. But for the persistent willing ignoramusses amongst us I feel that it is my duty to explain it again?
Why Jeremy didn't wear a wetsuit to commit murder, considering the amount of blood that was found at the scene, yet absolutely none was found on Jeremy.
Let me explain how a wetsuit works.

The vital clue can be found in the cunnningly disguised word, "WET". That word is absolutely vital in our understanding of how a WETsuit works as opposed to a DRYsuit, where the word DRY is an indication as to how a DRYsuit operates.

You see a diver or a surfer wear these suits in fairly warm temperatures to keep themselves warm. Divers who dive in extreme and cold places wear DRYsuits. A WETsuit keeps a surfer or a diver warm by absorbing water which creates a thin layer between the diver and the elements. The body heat of that diver or surfer warms up the layer of water and that is enough to9 keep the diver warm.

A DRYsuit on the other hand is designed to keep the water OUT and therefore chaacters like James Bond han put an evening suit on underneath the DRYsuit and when he takes of the DRY suit he will be nice and dry so he could go to a dinner party after swimming from a submarine moored just off the coast.

Now can you see the difference between a WETsuit and a DRYsuit? A DRYsuit is designed to keep the water OUT. A WETsuit is designed to let water IN. Here is a link if you don't believe me and by the way I used a wetsuit when diving in Cornwall many years ago now. I had a bright orange one.

http://www.ewetsuits.com/acatalog/How-Wetsuits-Work.html

Now! Can you see why Jeremy wouldn't wear a wet suit if he murdered his family? If not let me point it out to you. You see if he was to wear a WETsuit and it was designed to let water IN, then it stands to reason that it would also let in BLOOD and this blood would seep straight through the WETsuit and on to his body, so would in effect defeat the object, which was to stop him being covered in blood during his VIOLENT struggle with his father. Please discuss if you know better.

[Mr. Gee]

Here is a reason why Jeremy would also not wear loads of clothes to murder his family:

[Adam]

This board is for sharing information. It is a discussion forum If you have information about something, share it.

Rather than calling people 'naive', 'stupid' or saying 'I'm still waiting for you to use the common sense you were born with'.

This thread does not really convince me.

Anyway. Wet suit or not. You are not making any progress on proving Jeremy's innocence. Fire fighting is no good. Perhaps time to go for the unsafe conviction/MOJ angle ?

[lookout]

Here is a reason why Jeremy would also not wear loads of clothes to murder his family:

Hahahahahahaha 

[Mr. Gee]

This board is for sharing information. It is a discussion forum If you have information about something, share it.

Rather than calling people 'naive', 'stupid' or saying 'I'm still waiting for you to use the common sense you were born with'.

This thread does not really convince me.

Anyway. Wet suit or not. You are not making any progress on proving Jeremy's innocence. Fire fighting is no good. Perhaps time to go for the unsafe conviction/MOJ angle ?

I have reported this post because of the insulting words of Adam. He is really offensive towards me and is constantly saying abusive things towards me.

[nugnug]

if Jeremy had owned a wetsuit wouldent someone else of known this fact mugford have known wouldn't the relatives of known isnt there a possibility that somebody wuld of remembered him buying it.

[Jane]

I have reported this post because of the insulting words of Adam. He is really offensive towards me and is constantly saying abusive things towards me.

Grahame, if we were to report, as offensive, every post of Adam's which WE consider such, I suspect all HIS petty complaints would become lost in the rush.

[Mr. Gee]

if Jeremy had owned a wetsuit wouldent someone else of known this fact mugford have known wouldn't the relatives of known isnt there a possibility that somebody wuld of remembered him buying it.

Nugnug The wetsuit story is just another of those silly made-up rumours that has been borrowed from RWB's diary of dastardly deeds. It is almost hilarious if it wasn't so STUPID!. There ya go Adam something else for you to report since you aren't convinced by the clearest and plainest words that I could use so that even you can understand. But since you have demonstrated that you are not really interested in the truth I have given up trying to teach you. You Adam will just have to remain in your ignorance.

[susan]

Nugnug I think he had two wet suits one was a top and bottom and the other an all in one.  They were tested by EP and no forensic found.  AA has the all in one wet suit not sure where the other is. Think it has been established that a wet suit was not used by the person committing the murders at WHF.

[maggie]

Nugnug I think he had two wet suits one was a top and bottom and the other an all in one.  They were tested by EP and no forensic found.  AA has the all in one wet suit not sure where the other is. Think it has been established that a wet suit was not used by the person committing the murders at WHF.

I agree susie you are correct, the wet suit was a theory and that is all.  There was absolutely no evidence to back up Bob Woofendon's claims and anyway as Grahame has explained (many times) a wet suit would have been the last thing to wear.

[nugnug]

Nugnug I think he had two wet suits one was a top and bottom and the other an all in one.  They were tested by EP and no forensic found.  AA has the all in one wet suit not sure where the other is. Think it has been established that a wet suit was not used by the person committing the murders at WHF.

so that would mean he would have to have a 3rd one for the theory to be true.

[Adam]

Nugnug The wetsuit story is just another of those silly made-up rumours that has been borrowed from RWB's diary of dastardly deeds. It is almost hilarious if it wasn't so STUPID!. There ya go Adam something else for you to report since you aren't convinced by the clearest and plainest words that I could use so that even you can understand. But since you have demonstrated that you are not really interested in the truth I have given up trying to teach you. You Adam will just have to remain in your ignorance.

I have never said he wore a wet suit. I created a thread saying 'Did Jeremy wear a wet suit'.

Why did I create the thread ? For discussion. However Grahame jumped on it. Insulted me and accused me of claiming he 'did' wear a wet suit.

Only Jeremy knows what he was wearing when he committed the massacre. It certainly was not a flimsy nightie. But well done for writing a long thread.

[Jan]

This board is for sharing information. It is a discussion forum If you have information about something, share it.

Rather than calling people 'naive', 'stupid' or saying 'I'm still waiting for you to use the common sense you were born with'.

This thread does not really convince me.

Anyway. Wet suit or not. You are not making any progress on proving Jeremy's innocence. Fire fighting is no good. Perhaps time to go for the unsafe conviction/MOJ angle ?

So perhaps you will do us the favour of having a discussion then?

It means looking at different angles .

So comment on what Mr gee has said - do you think he is wrong?

[Mr. Gee]

I have never said he wore a wet suit. I created a thread saying 'Did Jeremy wear a wet suit'.

Why did I create the thread ? For discussion. However Grahame jumped on it. Insulted me and accused me of claiming he 'did' wear a wet suit.

Only Jeremy knows what he was wearing when he committed the massacre. It certainly was not a flimsy nightie. But well done for writing a long thread.

I created a thread entitled why Jeremy would not have worn a wet suit. Yet you have refused to comment on it even though I have gone to the trouble of trying to teach you backing up what I say by other experts on the subject as to why it would not have been to Jeremy's advantage to have done so. Yet you have chosen to ignore my thread whilst fully expecting others to comment on yours. That in my opinion is both willful ignorance and childish behaviour on your part. This as you have most eloquently reminded us is a discussion forum. If you want to behave like a responsible adult then please do so. If not then please do not continue to waste my time and yours.

[nugnug]

I have never said he wore a wet suit. I created a thread saying 'Did Jeremy wear a wet suit'.

Why did I create the thread ? For discussion. However Grahame jumped on it. Insulted me and accused me of claiming he 'did' wear a wet suit.

Only Jeremy knows what he was wearing when he committed the massacre. It certainly was not a flimsy nightie. But well done for writing a long thread.

how do we know it wasnt a flimsy nighty it might of been.