Yes inconsistancies but then again Jeremy is only ever likely to portray himself in the best light given his situation.
There is no doubt, and the police admit the investigation was not conducted very well, Jeremy was instrumental and prominent in providing the intel on the first police visit to White House Farm. After conviction as we all now know the investigation has flaws. Jeremy has plenty of ammunition to raise questions. However what confuses me is when he was being interviewed as a suspect for murder his cooperation levels seemed to change dramatically. From the reported accounts of his interviews, as detailed in the book 'Blood Relations' by Roger Wilkes, Jeremy was not very cooperative and its is reported he behaved in a manner with questions being answered in a sing song tone. Surely the time to have questioned the police conduct was at the first trial. There is also always the possibility Jeremy knows exactly what happened and he knows where the police have got it wrong.
Mike has been asked to make available on this forum the transcripts of Jeremy's original interviews with the police when Jeremy was regarded as a witness. So far Mike has declined to do this because these apparently include some personal details Jeremy had supplied to the police about Colin Caffel.
I wonder if Jeremy was complimentary?
Having said all that I do beleive there are aspects of this case which are questionable. Such as the silencer and the way it was introduced as evidence. However, such questions do not prove Jeremy's innocence they merely make the conviction potentially unsafe.