Do people write neutral books about, say, the Yorkshire Ripper, hedging their bets about whether he did it? I don't believe so. I think almost-everybody is sure.
If, based on her research, Carol Ann Lee is sure of Jeremy's guilt, then why the need for caution in her book? It's certain, isn't it? He did it, according to Carol Ann Lee [and Adam and Steve and Essex Police, etc., etc., etc.].
I really don't understand. Perhaps somebody could help me by explaining the inconsistency? It would be like Adam writing a book on the case, but ending it by saying: "Well, no-one is really sure that Jeremy did it. He denies it. Lots of people think he did it. And lots of people who knew Sheila in London miss her. The End." Thanks Adam.
Why all the reticence and caution? Is there a risk Jeremy could sue her? I am not a lawyer, still less a libel lawyer, but I really doubt that this could be considered a serious legal risk. Any such action would be dismissed as vexatious, surely? And anyway, so what? If she and her publishers were sued as part of some sort of defence strategy, it's more publicity for the book.
To my knowledge, James MacNeish has not been sued by David Bain over his book, albeit that is New Zealand law. Sorry to labour the point, but I simply don't understand.