Why Jeremy would not choose a wetsuit

[Jan]

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.

you posted this on 30th Nov

"Well there is a possibility he wore a wet suit. Bob Woffinden, who Jeremy approached believes so. Robert Boutflour believed he wore a wet suit or track suit. A thread has already been created on this."

[Adam]

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.

I have reported you're abusive post to the moderators. You must improve you're support for Jeremy. He has been in prison for 29 years.

I have commented on you're thread. A lot of it is waffle. The last paragraph tries to be conclusive. The link does nothing to back up you're claim.

To be honest I am not really bothered whether he wore a wet suit or not. It does not change the fact he committed the massacre

I created a discussion thread for discussion. . For  some reason you have decided to get excited and abusive again.

[Adam]

you posted this on 30th Nov

"Well there is a possibility he wore a wet suit. Bob Woffinden, who Jeremy approached believes so. Robert Boutflour believed he wore a wet suit or track suit. A thread has already been created on this."

So what ?

It says 'possibility'.

[Mr. Gee]

I have reported you're abusive post to the moderators. You must improve you're support for Jeremy. He has been in prison for 29 years.

I have commented on you're thread. A lot of it is waffle. The last paragraph tries to be conclusive. The link does nothing to back up you're claim.

To be honest I am not really bothered whether he wore a wet suit or not. It does not change the fact he committed the massacre

I created a discussion thread for discussion. . For  some reason you have decided to get excited and abusive again.

Well it is quite obvious that you are not serious about discussing these things Adam. Plus you have revealed your true reason for being here which is to be a troll. I have therefore no alternative but to report your trollish behaviour to the mods and to ask for a ban on you.

[Jan]

So what ?

It says 'possibility'.

So what? it implicated that you agreed - thread created .

[Adam]

So what? it implicated that you agreed - thread created .

I have no idea whether he wore a wet suit. It's not really that important.

I created a discussion thread several weeks ago. Why ? Perhaps someone may know about these things. Or more than me. Wasn't expecting Grahame to insult me. Actually I was.

[Reader]

Can folks try to avoid accusing each other of various things?

[Mr. Gee]

Can folks try to avoid accusing each other of various things?

Irish stew...Irish stew.....Irish stew in the name of the law.

I'm just extracting the urine out of him Reader and showing him how silly he is being by keep on reporting people.

[scipio_usmc]

no blood was found on Jeremy because:

1) he was not searched for blood or other evidence until weeks after the murders

2) he changed and washed up before he got around to calling police and didn't expect police to see him until after they managed to find the bodies and called to notify him.

Since he knew he would have time to wash up and change before police would ever see him he had no need to wear something over his clothes that he could quickly remove so that his underlying clothing was not stained.  That is why he would not wear a jumpsuit, wetshuit or anything else like you see in a movie where a criminal takes off a jumpsuit and tosses it in the trash then walks away in nice clean clothing among an unsuspecting crowd.

 

[Jan]

At least we agree with something - If he is guilty he got rid of or cleaned everything on the night. That is all I have ever said . Because there is no way he could assume the police would not suspect him. Especially as everyone says the scene looks "staged" and two shots suicide is "unusual" ( not impossible though)


So we are back to the fact that he would not have risked having wet washed clothes and shoes hanging around for the police or detective AE to find . So you have to factor in the time that would take and the fact that no dumped clothes were ever found - so if he hid them it must have been in a good place .

[Jane]

At least we agree with something - If he is guilty he got rid of or cleaned everything on the night. That is all I have ever said . Because there is no way he could assume the police would not suspect him. Especially as everyone says the scene looks "staged" and two shots suicide is "unusual" ( not impossible though)


So we are back to the fact that he would not have risked having wet washed clothes and shoes hanging around for the police or detective AE to find . So you have to factor in the time that would take and the fact that no dumped clothes were ever found - so if he hid them it must have been in a good place .

So we're now back to Adam's theory that he hawked incriminating clothing across Europe to get rid of it but leaves a blood stained and hairy silencer in a cupboard where it was certain to be found. Yeh, 'course he did!!!

[scipio_usmc]

So we're now back to Adam's theory that he hawked incriminating clothing across Europe to get rid of it but leaves a blood stained and hairy silencer in a cupboard where it was certain to be found. Yeh, 'course he did!!!

He had no idea that they would even search for the moderator let alone be able to establish it was used to kill Sheila and thus that she can't have killed herself.  Had he known that obviously he would have removed it before killing her with the rifle.  But then again maybe he needed to keep her at bay by pointing it at her and feared she would jump him if he tried removing it.

[Mr. Gee]

no blood was found on Jeremy because:

1) he was not searched for blood or other evidence until weeks after the murders

2) he changed and washed up before he got around to calling police and didn't expect police to see him until after they managed to find the bodies and called to notify him.

Since he knew he would have time to wash up and change before police would ever see him he had no need to wear something over his clothes that he could quickly remove so that his underlying clothing was not stained.  That is why he would not wear a jumpsuit, wetshuit or anything else like you see in a movie where a criminal takes off a jumpsuit and tosses it in the trash then walks away in nice clean clothing among an unsuspecting crowd.

OR....No blood was found on Jeremy because he didn't do the crime?

[scipio_usmc]

OR....No blood was found on Jeremy because he didn't do the crime?

The situation is the complete opposite of a known MOJ constantly plugged here where the defendant didn't have time to change his clothing or wash before being taken by police and the clothign he wore at the time of the murder WAS actually taken and tested as was his body tested so that means the lack of physical evidence found on his body and clothing helped estabish his innocence.

In contrast Jeremy's body was not tested, the clothing he wore while talking to police wa snot tested nor did they search for clothing he would have worn prior to meeting police. That is why no evidence was found it is hard to find evidence when no testing occurs. 

The hilarious thing is that you and your brethren don't care about the lack of evidence on Sheila who
had no reason to wash and change her clothes let alone hide her clothes and had she killed everyone else could not have changed and hid the clothing she wore when she did so without such clothing being found and certainly could not have changed the clothing she was wearing while shot.

The evidence that he did it is ironclad which is why he still rots in jail and will till he dies.  It is also why none of his supporters here such as yourself can refute the evidence.  You don't even try refuting the evidence you just lash out then tell me how you are not a Jeremy supporter despite stumping for him so hard that it demonstrates you lack candor and integrity.  Then your fellow Jeremy supporters come to your aid which just shows birds of a feather... 

[Jan]

The situation is the complete opposite of a known MOJ constantly plugged here where the defendant didn't have time to change his clothing or wash before being taken by police and the clothign he wore at the time of the murder WAS actually taken and tested as was his body tested so that means the lack of physical evidence found on his body and clothing helped estabish his innocence.

In contrast Jeremy's body was not tested, the clothing he wore while talking to police wa snot tested nor did they search for clothing he would have worn prior to meeting police. That is why no evidence was found it is hard to find evidence when no testing occurs. 

The hilarious thing is that you and your brethren don't care about the lack of evidence on Sheila who
had no reason to wash and change her clothes let alone hide her clothes and had she killed everyone else could not have changed and hid the clothing she wore when she did so without such clothing being found and certainly could not have changed the clothing she was wearing while shot.

The evidence that he did it is ironclad which is why he still rots in jail and will till he dies.  It is also why none of his supporters here such as yourself can refute the evidence.  You don't even try refuting the evidence you just lash out then tell me how you are not a Jeremy supporter despite stumping for him so hard that it demonstrates you lack candor and integrity.  Then your fellow Jeremy supporters come to your aid which just shows birds of a feather...

you are the one who is lashing out with insults .Not us   We have all said we will discuss points - one at a time if you stop insulting us. And when I did that before you said my answers were not valid because I was not looking at the "bigger picture" ? 

So if you want a proper discussion - stop ranting and raving and address the points . Otherwise don't bother.