There is an abudence of evidence if one bothers to compile and present it. I will do this later on and put an end to this debate once and for all
Here are some details that are very damaging to your claims:
A) RWB wrote his "diary" after Julie had already spoken to police
B) RWB's purpose for writing the diary was that police notified him that Julie had presented damaging evidence against Jeremy and that they were going to have him give a new statement thus they scheduled an appointment to take a statement. He decided to write up the "diary" to aid him in completing that police statement.
C) The date police took this statement, were shown his "diary" and took it from him was on September 10.
D) Julie's September 8 statement was taken 2 days prior to this. In this statement she mentions Jeremy told her he wanted them dead, that he knew how to secretly enter and exit the house and about the bike among many other things. She told police this all before Boutflour even completed his "diary" let alone gave it to police. To rational people this is irrefutable evidence that the "diary" can't have been a basis for her claims. At most one can allege they got together and conspired together, subsequently she went to police and subsequent to that he drafted the diary. Of course there is no evidence of any such conspiracy. The claim the diary formed the basis of her claims though is clearly absurd given it was drafted and given to police subsequent to her statement.
This is hardly the only issue where you have gone off the deep-end. You have been advancing the campaign team nonsense of multiple moderators.
The evidence is clear, there was only 1 moderator at WHF. The Boutflour moderators were not taken by police until the trial after the defense asked the Boutflours about such moderators on cross-examination. There is no evidence to establish evidence was planted inside the moderator but even less to suggest evidence was planted on/in multiple moderators. It is an absolutely stupid suggestion that people would doctor multiple moderators. If one is going to plant evidence it would be planted on/in Nevill's moderator not on/in Nevill's moderator and then on/in other moderators and those submitted as well.
The evidence establishing why the exhibit numbers changed is irrefutable. Not only were the exhibit numbers of the moderator changed on the innocent basis given for the changes, so were other exhibits changed on such basis. All the items found by Boutflour on 8/10 were redesignated DB1-4 after police came to appreciate he was the one who found them. After police interrogated Jeremy and believed he was guilty they then wanted the family to provide more detailed information. That is when they learned the circumstances of how the moderator, scope and ammunition had been found. At that point they redesignated these exhibits DB1-4.
After it was revealed DB1-4 already existed and that in fact DB1-100 had already been used they had no choice but to change the prefix again. It was far easier to change Boutflour's than David Bird's because Bird had many more exhibits that would need to be changed. They thus were changed to DRB1-4. The campaign team ignores that they had no choice but to change DB/1 they could not have two exhibits sharing the exhibit number DB/1. They also ignore the other items that changed as well to pretend only the moderator changed. They should not even try claiming DRB/1 was referring to a third moderator- the second change was mandatory only the first change was optional.
The reason given for that optional change is very logical and supported by the evidence. Nothing suggests it was a fraud to conceal that there were 2 moderators that had evidence on/in them and to try merging the together.
You need to start thinking logically instead of simply advancing claims by Jeremy supporters that make no sense and are contradicted by the weight of evidence such as evidence that RWB's diary was completed and turned over to police after Julie gave her statement and thus it can't have been used by her as a basis for her statement. At most one can allege they conspired together and after forming their conspiracy that she went to police with it while he drafted the diary. Again there is no evidence to establish this conspiracy but at least it is theoretical possible whereas police and Julie getting information from the diary to put in her September 8 statement isn't.
You have irrefutable proof that Julie took things from a diary written after giving her statement and went back in time and put them in her statement? I think not...
