If only the relatives had been as keen on handing back Sheila's diaries as having potential "evidence ",as they'd been on finding " other evidence " that held no relevance. Isn't this classed as withholding evidence too ?
Sheila had been compos mentis enough to enter events in her diaries hadn't she ?
Any chance that they're still in existence I ask myself ? Possibly not since it was said that the content might have been embarrassing to the relatives. That would have made interesting reading.
After all,it was the late Paula Gilfoyle's diaries which got Eddie released.
You really aren't xxxx xxxxx xx xxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
A) IF there was anything in those diaries which could be considered iffy, do you REALLY believe they're in existence still?
B) If all they contained were outpourings of misery and despair, harmless to everyone but her, WHY -again, IF they're still in existence- should they be made public?
C) If they contained evidence of the sort of lifestyle frowned on by the family, or revealed her thoughts about them/her relationship with June, I can perfectly understand that they wouldn't want the contents revealed, ESPECIALLY as June's sister is still living.
The bottom line here is, as it wasn't Sheila who was on trial, clearly no one thought it appropriate to have her diaries read out in court. There was no compunction then, OR now, for the family to offer them.