What Should Be Jeremy's Media Strategy?

[Erik Narramore]

I think the Campaign Team are bringing up old points from the past and claiming to have found new evidence to support what they say about these old points.  Old wine in new bottles, but admissible because these are points not rigorously tested at trial.  We will have to see if there really is new evidence of any significance or it's a bluff.  I doubt there is any evidence that 'exculpates' Jeremy, as one of the interviewees claims, though I certainly do accept that there is reasonable doubt, but what I think and what will happen are different things.  It's down to the courts and the CCRC.

Shaun Attwood is attaching his flag to this.  We will have to see what effect this has, both for Attwood himself and for Jeremy.  I suppose Attwood's calculation is that Jeremy is never going to fall down and confess now, and Jeremy's cause aligns with Attwood's target audience: mainly disaffected YouTubers and people inclined to conspiracy theories and criticism of the police, that sort of thing.  Conversely, I can see why one or two pro-guilt posters on the Blue Forum are worried about Attwood's support for the campaign and have reacted tempestuously to it.  What Jeremy has always lacked is momentum behind his campaigns.  I personally have never taken to Attwood or Steeples.  I think they are both fairly superficial and craft their content with their target audience in mind, rather than due to any belief in pursuing the truth.  They have both fallen for the Savile-era sex abuse hysteria.

Nevertheless, support from a social media personality could change everything, and this can - I believe - affect the legal outcome.  I recall it was said at the time of the Birmingham Six appeals that the appellate judges resented the involvement of the media in the Chris Mullins' campaign, which included at least two documentaries (I remember way back when I had a TV, the Granada documentary on the case was quite good), but even if the judiciary resented the crude 'legal populism' of Mullins, I also suspect that the mass of support and 'atmosphere' this generated must have influenced things.

If Jeremy can penetrate the mainstream media, and even have his own 'Granada' treatment, his campaign may gain traction.  However, as I think I have observed previously, the Birmingham Six cause fell within the Zeitgeist of the times, whereas a convicted mass murderer/double child killer does not, or may not.  Is the 'air war' of public perception more important than the 'land battles' of the CCRC and the courts?  They are both important, but I think success in the former can affect the latter, though maybe not always for the better.  How does Jeremy go about winning this 'air war'?  I think it will be difficult because, in my view, the 'big picture' theories of the innocent camp are overblown and misguided and reek of desperation.  If I am wrong about that and it was all a conspiracy, then it's Pulitzer Prizes all round and somebody has a blockbuster Hollywood movie on their hands, starring Tom Cruise as the aging victorious Count of Monte Tolleshunt.  We must wait to see what is this evidence that the Campaign Team and the legal team have got in their possession.

My view is a bit more down-to-earth.  Nobody knows what happened in the farmhouse that night, except possibly for Jeremy - and perhaps even Jeremy does not know.  The 'big picture' theories involving the police cannot be rationally proved or disproved, due to a lack of evidence.  The evidence for the police accidentally shooting Sheila and then swopping out a bullet is weak and contrived.  I would say the same for the claims that Nevill and/or Sheila made 999 calls and/or calls to a police station.  This is a case that rests on technicalities and raising doubt about little things that add up to big things affecting the safety of the convictions.

To be clear: I think the convictions are unsafe, but that is not the same as saying Jeremy is innocent.