Carol Ann Lee has appeared in an HBO podcast to accompany the recent TV series:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E76jxCp_F6o
The content speaks for itself: she clearly believes strongly that Jeremy is guilty. She parrots all the standard pro-guilt arguments.
My question for Carol Ann Lee is: If you're so sure he's guilty, why isn't that the conclusion of your own book on the case?
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.
I really don't understand. Perhaps somebody could help me by explaining the inconsistency?
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.
Jeremy is 'definitely' the murderer, according to Carol Ann Lee:
https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/essex-itv-crime-drama-white-house-farm-1-6456648
I find it telling that she couldn't state that in her book. If his guilt is such a sure thing, then why not put your money where your mouth is?
An interview with Carol Ann Lee, and two other authors, about their craft:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NthBz9Lyjdo&t=56s
I didn't hear any mention of the Bamber case, but to be honest, I find her boring so skipped through it.