Ah, this must be the so called 'new evidence'. This has got no chance Roch because, a. you (we) don't know if the marks are laceration or b. what could have caused them. It's just pure speculation and wishful thinking.
Caroline - There are many nicks, scrapes, gouges, abrasions upon Sheila Caffell. As far as I am aware - the only images put up on here in the last 24 hours or so, have been of crime scene images that already exist on the forum. That is a deliberate restriction, after due consideration.
I dont recall saying the evidence was 'new'. How could it be new - if it has been the property of Essex Constabulary for 32 years? I think the term bombshell is an Adamisation
- at least I dont recall using it.
For several years, I've consistently claimed Jeremy would not be freed and have tended towards a pessemistic view - given controversy and 'political' aspects. However if people can be given more of an insight in to Sheila's injuries - it allows them to further evaluate the credibility of the prosecution's evidence and consider the machinations involved in securing a conviction.
Aso, why didn't Venezis mention such lacerations in his notes? He had no reason not to at that point?
I've only seen an excerpt - regarding the bloodied palms etc. I agree that in theory - if a genuine copy of the notes were obtained from a time when Sheila was prime suspect - there should be mention of wounds.