I simply struggle to believe if he committed the murders he did it on his own.
A lot of people seem to have this hangup and in turn it seems to make such people look for something that isn't there.
I follow evidence so I only believe Jeremy had help if there is credible evidence he had help. All the evidence though points to a single killer. The sole evidence of Jeremy getting help was his account to Julie that he hired a MM which ended up falling apart under scrutiny. There is nothing to suggest Brett to anyone else was involved in any way.
There is no evidence Sheila was involved- that is what helped convict him yet people are apt to believe she was involved anyway because they have a hangup of Jeremy being responsible alone. What can Jeremy say about the lack of evidence that Sheila did anything? Publicly he alleges police hid such evidence though he has been unable to develop a shred of evidence to that effect to use in an appeal proceeding. Allegedly in secret he claimed claimed he is the one who scrubbed the evidence but his claims make no sense. He suggests he told Sheila to wash up and destroyed her clothing in order to help her escape liability. He was planning to help her get away with it. Planning to help her get away with it makes zero sense. If they were quite close it is one thing but he didn't made clear long before that he didn't want to share the inheritance with her so trying to help her escape liability and try to help make up a claim someone else did it is not credible at all. If he did tell this to someone he told it to a convict thinking the convict would be ignorant/gullible enough to buy it. He didn't tell that story publicly because he knows no one will buy it unless one is predisposed to the thought he could not do it alone.
A lot of people want to think there is more than meets the eye to this case but I don't see it. I think what we see is all that there is to see. This may seem like a let down and suck because it leaves little to discuss but that's all I think that is ever going to come out.
My idea of a good book on this case is one that provides a more detailed account of the trial testimony to provide the most complete picture available. It would not amount to any new evidence or facts just publicly releasing tidbits that have not been publicly released prior. There won't be anything dramatic in such testimony because the most important points were already summarized in the appeal decision etc. and many statements were released so we already have a good idea of everything significant.
I don't mean to sound like a Geico commercial but convicts lie including to other prisoners it's what they do.
