How many false promises have I made in the past Scip? None! Is my name Mike? No!
You have made plenty of false claims. One of those claims you took form Mike including the false claim Cook took the moderator apart in August. Others are your own.
"JM never told Julie anything. What JM sais about the bike and window in her September statements is written in RWB's diary weeks before hand."
His diary was written in September as a result of her statement. After she came forward with the truth police decided to re-interview Boutflour and he wrote the diary as an aid for his statement.
Your get so many things wrong it is amazing.
After making that false claim you wrote, "Her statements are coerced this is irrefutable because they contain multiple contradictory narratives that a truthful statement would not manifest." This is another fallacy. The statements she made that you have a problem with are claims that she would not have made if coerced by police. If coerced she would have said Jeremy confessed to committing the murders himself and they would have fed her precise details about the crime that had not been released to the public. They would not have coerced her to include erroneous details.
You insisted it was a fact she was coerced and said you would prove it beyond question. You failed to live up to your promise of proving such he evidence you offered failed miserably. All you did was repeat the same arguments you had already made which simply amounted to opinion including your OPINION that it had to be coerced because Jeremy never would have told her the things she claimed. Your opinion that he would not have told her he wanted to kill his family is not proof that he didn't tell her. You elevate your subjective opinion to evidence and favorable unsupported opinion of lawyers as facts. Knowing what I do about your bias, your lack of comprehension on how to effectively prove things and about this case and the limits that exist I know that your claim you or anyone else can prove Sheila did it is a pipedream. There is no conceivable way to prove Sheila did it. There isn't even a viable way to prove it is reasonably likely she did it let alone a certainty.
Instead of presenting it to people who have demonstrated relentless bias and divorced from reality to such a large degree that they tried to appeal using nonsense claims thus are useless in judging the validity of your claims, you need to present it to people who will thoroughly test it to see whether it has any validity. Sycophants will say anything sounds great. If it can't stand up to scrutiny then it is worthless and there is little point in trying to fight for the right to argue it to a court.
If someone is stupid enough to pay for claims by non-experts then they deserve to lose their money. Just remember that when your name is attached to claims that are dismissed as rubbish your ego can take a big hit. You have enough problems handling being refuted on an anonymous message board let alone in a public arena where it can follow you around for life.
