Scipio I've highlighted the following in your post above 7th para down:
"She [JM] told Liz what happened" And "All police knew is that Liz claimed she [JM] told her certain things".
I can't find anywhere in JM's WS's where she refers to telling Liz anything about JB's involvement? Unlike SB where JM states where, when and what she told her in relations to JB's involvement.
JM produced a detailed WS in chronological order but absolutely nothing in her WS re telling Liz &%+((£ As I said in an earlier post CAL's book refers to Liz being told but this is in Liz's WS's and trial testimony only.
&%+((£
The conspiracy theorists would claim police and Julie tried to conceal the fact she only told them the truth after Liz blabbed to police and in response they questioned her again. Such would argue police didn't want to look stupid and they wanted Julie to look like she came clean solely because of her conscience.
I'm of the view this is not harmful so there is no reason to hide it though there was no reason to bother talking about it in the statement either because it was not important for the intentions of the statements. Obviously what Liz was told and did was important to Liz so she made sure to tell it but it wasn't really significant to the case in terms of evidence. Many investigative issues that lead to crucial evidence are only referenced on a few documents because they are important for investigative purposes not evidence.
That she told Liz such is hearsay. If one is trying to argue she made it up after speaking to police it helps prove that is not the case and that she said it prior. That is not proof that Jeremy told it to her of course she could have lied to Liz but one would have to come up with why she would bother lying to Liz and to establish the entire tale was a lie.
Making up a more complex lie of a hitman when Jeremy had no alibi is silly and naming the hitman so he would be able to prove the tale to be false even more silly. It is much more credible that Jeremy made up the hitman story. It is more credible Jeremy woke Julie up before phoning police to tell her they were dead than simply to say he received a distress call from Nevill and was worried. But none of this was in a vacuum. All the other evidence and issues are also important in evaluating the testimony.
Consider the following fact patterns:
A) Physical and medical evidence inconclusive as to whether man committed suicide by drowning himself or was drowned by someone else. Man was not known to be suicidal or depressed. Witness claims that before the body was found defendant told her he murdered his friend.
B) Physical and medical evidence inconclusive as to whether man committed suicide by drowning himself or was drowned by someone else. Man was not known to be suicidal or depressed. After body was found witness claims defendant told her he murdered his friend.
C) Same facts as A except man was known to be suicidal.
D) Same facts as B except man was known to be suicidal.
E) Physical and medical evidence establishes man was strangled then dumped in water to make it look like he drowned. Man was not known to be suicidal or depressed. Witness claims that prior to the body being found defendant told her he murdered his friend.
F) Same as E except man was known to be suicidal.
With respect to A-D. The witness testimony is what helps establish whether murder occurred or there was a suicide. With respect to E and F other evidence establishes it was a murder the testimony helps establish who the murderer was.
If someone is not known to be suicidal and other extraneous evidence can offer support to a witness account. The evidence proving the person was murdered for sure certainly adds some support. Here is a fact pattern where it does the opposite:
G) Evidence establishes victim was suicidal and left a note saying he was jumping off a bridge. Victim is found dead in water near bridge. Autopsy indicates victim drowned, eyes and neck have no signs of strangulation. After body is found defendant told witness he strangled the victim then wrote the suicide note and threw the dead body in the water.
In this instance the evidence indicates there was no murder and either the defendant lied to the witness or the witness made it up. Either way it can't be a basis to establish guild beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence proves that the victim drowned and wasn't strangled. If evidence is inconclusive that is one thing because then it can go either way so other evidence matters. But if evidence is conclusive about murder or conclusive that a murder didn't happen then that's the end of it.
In this case we have Jeremy aware that they were killed, he called police to report such. Prior to that he did in fact call Julie. Her claim of him calling to tell her they were dead is much more credible than his claim he did it to say he was worried. That he called her before police lends support to her other claims. It also severely hurts him because evidence establishes Nevill could not have made such a distress call. Reporting a fake distress call to provide an excuse for having knowledge they were killed when he should not have know such is quite bad. This supports her claim he is guilty and if he is guilty it is more believable he told her what she claimed.
This is not a case like A-D where the testimony establishes a murder occurred as opposed to a suicide. This is a case like E and F where extraneous evidence proves Sheila was murdered. In E and F the only evidence we have of who the murdered was came from the witness. But here we have the defendant directly notifying police he knew about the murder not merely notifying a friend. Jeremy didn't just screw up 1 thing he botched many different aspects.
I don't care how much evidence there is or what the crime is there will always be people who suggest evidence was planted, witnesses lied etc but just making such allegations are not enough. When people admit they lied, admit they planted evidence or there is irrefutable proof the evidence had to have been planted that is when someone will be exonerated. The more evidence that needs to have been planted and more complex the claims the less believable they become.
The pinnacle of this is the Steven Avery case. There are people saying that police murdered Halbach purely in order to frame Avery. Yet others say police knew who really killed her but decided to take advantage and let the killer go in favor of framing Avery. They argue police planted Halbach's vehicle on his property, planted his blood and other DNA of his inside her car, planted her burned remains on his property, planted a bullet with her DNA on his property, planted the remnants of her destroyed PDA and cell phone on his property, her key in his bedroom and other less significant evidence was also planted. The defense had no proof any let alone all of this evidence was planted. In fact, the FBI tested the blood source they claimed was used for the planting. They claimed the cops broke into the court clerk's office and stole blood from a sample that had been taken years earlier. The blood sample had EDTA but the blood stains in the car did not nor was any blood missing from the vial anyway. The jury rejected the unsupported framing claims. Supporters demand a new trial saying the jury got it wrong though they have no evidence greater than that put before the jury.
This case features a similar situation where there is no evidence that proves the jury got it wrong but supporters will claim such anyway and use social medial to try to put pressure on the authorities. In the Steven Avery case one such supporter who used social media to drum up support is his current attorney. She has mocked people who criticized her tactics as a waste of time saying public opinion is not going to sway appeal courts. She seems to think that public opinion can help her. That suggests she has zilch in a legal sense to raise because if you have valid legal argument you use that as opposed to constantly trying to drum up public opinion. That smacks of desperation or alternatively just a search for publicity.
