I emphatically do NOT accept what Mr Dovey is saying. He is lying on the point, and if you like, I'll say it to his face.
He is simply lying and his evidence is a joke. The surrounding circumstances and what he admits himself show him to be lying. Any unbiased/objective person who reads the relevant part of that link can see it. He admits that he was pressured by the police, and then in the same breath, he says he wasn't!
Asking us to accept this is akin to treating us like children. We are not children. We will stare the truth in the face, no matter how ugly it is.
Guilters, including you Real Justice, keep telling us that Julie Mugford and Susan Battersby went to the police voluntarily, but they did not. Mr Dovey confirms this when he says the police set up the meeting.
Niceties and pleasantries aside, debating/discussing this case with people like you is rather like debating with an estate agent the merits of a particular house on its books, with the prospective seller listening in.
WHOA!!! I'm going to say, before I start this that there's no offence intended, but from your above post, you probably will be.
You sound angry. You appear to be taking this very personally. Do you really see yourself as having the chance to call him a liar to his face? You say his "evidence is a joke". I'd thought you to be more intelligent than to use an expression employed by those with nothing better to contribute to an argument.
He's not asking "us" to believe anything. It was neither written nor said for "our" benefit, but maybe you feel as if you're being treated like a child. "We will stare the truth in the face, no matter how ugly it is"!!!! Dear God, it sounds like an Evangelist's rallying cr and is unlikely to have alleged miscreants shaking in their shoes..
At the end of the day, whether Julie and Susan visited the bank of their own volition, or whether their arms were twisted, and whether they went alone or were accompanied by a policeman, or whether the bank decided not to prosecute or the police asked them no to, and whether Julie received a caution or whether she didn't, makes not an iota of difference to whether or not Jeremy pulled the trigger, and NONE of it makes him innocent. The most it would have done is suggest Julie's evidence to be unreliable, but that doesn't mean she wasn't telling the truth.
If you truly feel that "debating/discussing this case with people like you is rather like debating with an estate agent the merits of a particular house on its books, with the prospective seller listening in" it maybe better for your blood pressure if you didn't or put them on ignore. Deep, slow breathing might help.
