Why chicken?? Your opionion is as validcas anyones in here and you have a right to think what you want !
Me i think hes guilty as charged ( the more i read the more im sure) i used to be 50/50 but that changed quite quickly after joining this forum! Nobody has posted anything thats made me think hes innocent (quite the opposite in fact) maybe im wring but who cares cos in the scheme of things my opinion doesnt matter anyway!
My biggest worry is that a guilty man will get freed on a technicality just because he has a fanclub!
Joolz, it sounds a bit derogatory to label some people as being in a 'fan club'. Maybe some people have examined the case in a similar manner to your own examination.... but have come to a different conclusion.
Going off topic from the thread title...
I retain some doubt about Jeremy's alleged innocence due to damning circumstancial evidence. I do retain some doubt as to the validity of this circumstancial evidence... but other than a document posted on here about composite statements, I've yet to see solid proof from the defence, re statements actually being either 'sexed up' or eidited between arrest and trial with the aim of securing a conviction.
On this issue alone, the defence is alleging that numerous pages of of statements are simply missing.
It just goes round and round because I'm guessing the poster who adheres to the prosecution line would argue that the missing pages are probably irrelavent... and the poster who takes up the defence line would argue the exact opposite, suspecting the pages were ommitted precisely because they dont fit the prosecutions' case.
