JB may have been bursting to tell someone of his crime, its been the downful of many a person. JM may be vindictive, making the whole story up etc.
He could have dug a whole and shouted his secret down that. 
But you understand my point Grahame?
We can interpret things to suit our angle of approach.
As i've said before, i'm the guilty until proved innocent approach, and i can interpret the JB/JM relationship both ways.
Yes Paul I can see both sides in this case and the reasons both sides give. But the way British law works once you have been found guilty in a court of law with a jury of 12 people it is 10 times more difficult to prove your innocence. Quite simply because of the way the law is scructured. Once upon a time there was no right of appeal and unfortunately the courts still think in those terms because of the faith they put in the justice system today.
So its a pointless discussion really.
There's 2 ways of looking at the JM/JB relationship, depending on your angle. The jury chose to believe JM, no doubt considering other factors involved with the case, such as its unlikely SC did the killings.
So the long and the short of it is, is there any new evidence to show SC did pull the trigger? I haven't seen any, so i'm assuming he'll not get an appeal this time?
