That's no bad thing because instead of reading what others have said ,I'd rather work it out for myself and use my own methods and thoughts that have remained personal to me.
It is a bad thing to not follow the evidence and believe whatever you desire without regard to the evidence. Evaluating the evidence on your own to make sure of what the facts and evidence are and then following the evidence where it leads is fine, in fact this is what rational people do instead of just blindly believe what other say. You don't do this though. Rather you blindly take claims from books, news articles and various Jeremy supporters and in the process end up asserting bogus facts as a basis for your claims. You present bogus facts like the false claim that June and Nevill had claw marks from Sheila's nails on their arms instead of basing your position on real facts.
To evaluate this case on one's own requires reading all the publicly available court documents, police documents and witness statements and testimony, to evaluate that evidence and then based thereupon to assess what happened.
You cite books and websites and claims of Jeremy supporters not the evidence itself. So while you claim you are deciding on your own in reality you simply decided what you want to believe after reading opinions form others and thus a from a position of ignorance (because only if one reads the available evidence and then decides are they deciding from an informed position) and then seek out whatever you can find that is favorable to the position you chose to take to try to justify it.
I don't need to go looking for things to justify my position. The things I cite are the things I took into consideration in arriving at my position. In contrast Jeremy supporters came to the decision he is innocent simply because that is what they choose to believe and go around seeking things to try to justify to others that such position is plausible. Then after nothing useful is found a lot of twisting and contorting takes place to pretend there is evidence like the contorting to pretend Nevill called police. This is a particularly good example because at first you said it makes no sense for Nevill to call police after calling Jeremy. You said if he were going to call police he would not have bothered calling Jeremy.
After people explained to you that if Nevill called police it would prove Jeremy is innocent then you did an about face and said you believed it happened. you believed it not because it is logical or supported by evidence but simply because it is favorable to Jeremy.
Since your compass to assess truth is based on whether something supports Jeremy or not then your compass is of no use in assessing truth. That you believe something doesn't establish whether it is likely true or not all it reveals is that it must be favorable to Jeremy. So when you render your opinion it provides little value for others to use to assess anything beyond what is favorable or unfavorable to Jeremy.
