What Makes Supporters Believe Jeremy is Innocent?

[Adam]

The whole scene of Jeremy expecting to be able to pull off a slaughter of a family of five in three different rooms - alone and with a weak firearm.
To me that is a stretch; how could he expect to control five people in three different rooms? If it were established he had an accomplice I would be on the guilty side.

No he didn't have an accomplice.

He committed the massacre at the perfect time for an execution. I have already explained how he did it.

[nugnug]

That was done in 1986.

it clearly wasnt becouse your still trying to do it.

[Jane]

it clearly wasnt becouse your still trying to do it.

Well he hasn't been in prison for 30 years because the jury decided he was innocent.

[John]

it clearly wasnt becouse your still trying to do it.

Not at all.  What I and many others like me have done is dispel the crap being promoted in this case and very successful we have been too.

We have no need to prove Jeremy guilty but you have a need to prove him innocent which you and others have summarily failed to do.

[Alias]

Does that mean you don't think Sheila did it, either. I would have thought that what proved difficult for Jeremy MAY have been impossible for Sheila.

I think there is a big difference in being in the house already versus having to break in (I don´t believe Jeremy slept over at the farm).
Besides, Sheila "only" had four people to deal with, so one grown up out of the equation.

John, was there a lock and key to Sheila´s room?

[lookout]

Not at all.  What I and many others like me have done is dispel the crap being promoted in this case and very successful we have been too.

We have no need to prove Jeremy guilty but you have a need to prove him innocent which you and others have summarily failed to do.

Do give yourself a nice big pat on the back.

[Adam]

I think there is a big difference in being in the house already versus having to break in (I don´t believe Jeremy slept over at the farm).
Besides, Sheila "only" had four people to deal with, so one grown up out of the equation.

John, was there a lock and key to Sheila´s room?

He didn't sleep over at the farm. He probably had supper that night through gritted teeth. But had to as part of the plan. The Foakes's saw him drive off that night.

It was easy to quietly enter WHF through the bathroom window. He may have even left it an inch open before driving back.

[John]

Do give yourself a nice big pat on the back.

The punishment should fit the crime in this case so until that occurs the five innocents will never have justice.

[nugnug]

Well he hasn't been in prison for 30 years because the jury decided he was innocent.

if hes conviction was safe then all the arguments about how he did should of sorted out courtesy of the cps.youve got bob wolfingdon and richard webster saying theyve solved the case youve got mason doyle saying that hes now got proof of guilt now clearly they dont belive that guilt was proved in the first place.

[Jane]

if hes conviction was safe then all the arguments about how he did should of sorted out courtesy of the cps.youve got bob wolfingdon and richard webster saying theyve solved the case youve got mason doyle saying that hes now got proof of guilt now clearly they dont belive that guilt was proved in the first place.

Nugs, they can believe what they want -as can we- and go on to make money out of it.

[lookout]

The punishment should fit the crime in this case so until that occurs the five innocents will never have justice.

John,you're beginning to sound like a parrot.What you utter,has no substance whatsoever and doesn't tell anybody anything. Typical text-book job.

[susan]

Adam none of us know whether or not he went back to the farm on foot do we.  Maybe the door was left open for him to come back either by Sheila or Ralph

[Jane]

John,you're beginning to sound like a parrot.What you utter,has no substance whatsoever and doesn't tell anybody anything. Typical text-book job.

Lookout, I'm not certain what else CAN be said. Despite feeling that the trial was an unholy cock-up,  I still think Jeremy is guilty.

[nugnug]

Nugs, they can believe what they want -as can we- and go on to make money out of it.

but hes not the only case they could make money out of and what really surprised me was websters interest he was normally interested in murders.

[lookout]

Lookout, I'm not certain what else CAN be said. Despite feeling that the trial was an unholy cock-up,  I still think Jeremy is guilty.

And what you think is entirely your prerogative. At least you are in agreeance with the way the trial was conducted. At least another appeal would put Jeremy on the right track this time.
I'm afraid I haven't found a scrap of evidence against him. Proper evidence I'm talking about.

The reason nothing else can be said is because those who think him guilty have used up ALL the resources that were already in place,i.e  links,books,media,relatives, ex girlfriend,police,professionals.
How easy was that to deduce ?