Your excuses for this women are beyond desperate. Her testimony is a result of coercion, I know it and you know it. But whether your going to admit it or not who knows.
You have presented zero evidence of coercion. You believe she was coerced simply because that fits in with the narrative you have decided to advance not because evidence establishes it happened. You admitted long ago to me that you changed your mind in this case not because of evidence but because of a very stupid subjective reason. You said you spoke to lawyers who believe Jeremy would not be convicted based upon the same evidence if he were tried today. Their subjective unsupported opinion that he would not be convicted is what you claimed convinced you he was innocent. You approach this case from a very emotional standpoint not a logical one.
I don't believe Julie was coerced because there is no evidence to suggest she was and furthermore there is evidence that establishes she wasn't.
Evidence establishes that she stated her claims to a friend BEFORE she spoke to police, that this friend went to the police and that this is why police questioned Julie. You have presented no evidence of any kind that establishes the police went to Julie and put pressure on her to make up stories and then told her and the friend to support the lie that the friend went to police and this is why police questioned her.
You have failed to identify any pressure the police could use to even try to force Julie to lie for them. What could they do to her how could they threaten her if she didn't lie for them? You don't even think about it you just make up it happened. They had no evidence that she had committed any crimes or anything they could use as leverage to coerce her.
The best anyone can make up is to suggest that police convinced Julie he was guilty and going to get away with murder so begged her to lie in order to help them nab him. No one has any evidence whatsoever that anyone put their career on the line to solicit her to lie let alone that agreed to do so.
What I know is that if police had convinced Julie to lie that they would have had her say that Jeremy told her he committed the murders they would not have her make up a hitman account. If they were the ones behind it they also would have made sure all the details he told her matched what happened to the letter of what the evidence established. They would have had her say he told her he shot Nevill 8 times not 7. They would have had her say he admitted he shot Nevill in the bedroom and then shot him again in the kitchen. The inaccurate details you point to REFUTE your argument that police coerced her and establish they didn't. They would not coerce her to say such things.
You attack Mike and profess that you are evidence based while he isn't but you advance many of the same things he does, you only reject a few of his most outrageous claims like that police shot her in the kitchen and moved her body. Rejecting such doesn't make one rational and evidence based indeed you support the nonsense about there being multiple moderators that were doctored and this is why there were multiple exhibit numbers for Nevill's moderator.
You approach the case in the same biased way Mike does. It is Mikesque to claim police would coerce Julie to make up a hitman who police would easily be able to prove was not involved. It is Miekesque to claim police would coerce her to say confessed but to feed her false details to which he confessed to.
I believe Jeremy is guilty as sin and I KNOW that the evidence establishes he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe Julie told the truth and that the moderator evidence was not doctored. I KNOW that no one has come up with any evidence to prove Julie lied or any evidence to prove the moderator evidence was doctored.
I also KNOW that you decided Jeremy was innocent without reviewing the evidence but rather based on your gut feelings and beliefs of others and after making such decision you then decided to review the evidence to see how you can look for ways to twist the evidence to pretend it supports your view. In contrast I followed the evidence where it leads and after reviewing everything decided Jeremy is indeed guilty.
Let's just look at an argument which illustrates how different we operate. You argued that Jeapes saw a rifle in the bedroom window and a crime scene photo confirms it was in that location at the time of the raid. The photo that shows the murder weapon near the window was taken after the photos where it was seen on Sheila's body. How could this confirm it had been in the window at the time of the raid? Moreover, evidence proves that Jeapes was looking in the boxroom window not the bedroom window. Countless times this was pointed out to you and countless times you ignored it. In the meantime all Jeapes said was that she saw something in the boxroom window that appeared to be the barrel of a gun sticking up like would be the case if it had been leaning on a window sill. She wasn't positive that it was a rifle barrel it could have been a tip of a broomstick for all she knew or a reflection. In any event it was a different room. She said this more than a month later not contemporaneously which casts even more doubt on it. But even if she did see something that appeared to be the tip of a rifle in the boxroom window but chose not to tell anyone because she wasn't sure, clearly whatever it was that she saw wasn't a rifle because no rifle was found in the boxroom let alone near the window. Instead of facing this reality you continued suggesting a rifle had been in he master bedroom window and that she saw it.
I face reality and follow evidence where it leads while like Mike you make mountains out of molehills.
Its remarkable how Jeremy's detailed "confession" Julie revealed on the 8th of September had no mention of a silencer. Maybe that's because the blood flake was discovered on the 12th of September hence police nor the relatives could have given her that information. The same silencer that DI Cook dismantled in August and never reported any blood! That would explain why DI Cooks 1991 COLP interview audio tape went "missing" or is that just another innocent mistake?
1) Thank you for proving yet again how you post the same false claims Mike does. Mike made up that Cook took the moderator apart in August. There are no documents of any kind that suggest Cook ever took the moderator apart let alone did so in August. Nor is there any testimonial evidence of any kind that suggests such. Mike took a photocopy of a photo showing the moderator disassembled and wrote a date on it. He then claimed because this date was written on it this proves it was taken on such date. You are the one who falls for nonsense not me. How funny it would be if this lie formed part of your breakthrough.
2) Julie said that Jeremy failed to provide her a detailed account of how the murders were committed. She said that he only told her a few details. Your claim that she said he gave a very detailed confession is patently false. Since he didn't give her much detail he didn't mention the moderator. If police were forcing her to lie then they would have had her lie about him saying he used the moderator. Blood was found on and inside it August 13th. They had suspicions it was used in the murders at that time but didn't think it mattered much if it was used. They didn't really think through how ridiculous it would be for Sheila to use it then put it away before killing herself. Even though such would be ridiculous the defense argued that is what happened. The significance of the flake is that such proved it was attached when Sheila was killed which makes it impossible for her to have killed herself. If the flake is subtracted then impossible changes back to ridiculous.
