Author Topic: " Fresh evidence uncovered ",as stated in todays Essex and Colchester Gazette.  (Read 1540 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Reader

  • Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2073
. . . or religion - faith being a different thing - . . .
Different thing? The word "faith" has "religion" as its primary synonym, and vice versa. Neither word acquires a new meaning by virtue of being typed in block capitals.

Offline Jane J

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23965
Different thing? The word "faith" has "religion" as its primary synonym, and vice versa. Neither word acquires a new meaning by virtue of being typed in block capitals.

That may well be the dictionary definition. In practice, it doesn't work like that. A person can be religious in that they attend a church regularly, which may mean no more than they attend a church regularly. A person of faith may not attend any established place of worship, but they carry their faith with them on a daily basis, often living it to the point at which such is recognizable.

Offline Jane J

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23965
Oooh! The local Tiptree rag has today published that Jeremy campaigners have discovered "direct evidence" of his innocence. Something about Sheila having called 999 at 6.09am. Yeah, right......................

......................further to that, followed a lengthy discussion during which it became revealed that the psychiatrist who did the first evaluation concluded that Jeremy was manipulative, intelligent and astute -rather different from the mummies boy portrayed here- and he predicted that he would go on to educate himself on the aspects of law necessary to get himself off on technicalities.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 34957
Many of those in professions such as psychiatry and medicine don't always agree on each other's personal diagnoses of patients------so I take those in the media with a large pinch of salt. It's probably another " carrot dangling " tactic.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 19921
Oooh! The local Tiptree rag has today published that Jeremy campaigners have discovered "direct evidence" of his innocence. Something about Sheila having called 999 at 6.09am. Yeah, right......................

......................further to that, followed a lengthy discussion during which it became revealed that the psychiatrist who did the first evaluation concluded that Jeremy was manipulative, intelligent and astute -rather different from the mummies boy portrayed here- and he predicted that he would go on to educate himself on the aspects of law necessary to get himself off on technicalities.

Ha, ha!!!!!! Least Sheila (in her psychosis) had the wherewithal to dial 999 (although why she would want to when the house was surrounded by cops makes the suggestion silly and desperate) - it didn't happen.

Interesting analysis by the psychiatrist and accurate!
100% GUILTY - No doubts!

Offline Jane J

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23965
Ha, ha!!!!!! Least Sheila (in her psychosis) had the wherewithal to dial 999 (although why she would want to when the house was surrounded by cops makes the suggestion silly and desperate) - it didn't happen.

Interesting analysis by the psychiatrist and accurate!

And why would you call an ambulance for the dead? I'd have thought an undertaker would have been more appropriate.

Offline Hartley.

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2415
Oooh! The local Tiptree rag has today published that Jeremy campaigners have discovered "direct evidence" of his innocence. Something about Sheila having called 999 at 6.09am. Yeah, right......................

......................further to that, followed a lengthy discussion during which it became revealed that the psychiatrist who did the first evaluation concluded that Jeremy was manipulative, intelligent and astute -rather different from the mummies boy portrayed here- and he predicted that he would go on to educate himself on the aspects of law necessary to get himself off on technicalities.

Is it the same article as this:

http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/15458597.Campaigners_uncover__direct_evidence__of_convicted_murderer_s_innocence/

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 19921
And why would you call an ambulance for the dead? I'd have thought an undertaker would have been more appropriate.

It would hardly be the first thought when you intended to kill yourself. It's just another example of someone reading a documents incorrectly and making the wrong assumption.
100% GUILTY - No doubts!


Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 34957
And why would you call an ambulance for the dead? I'd have thought an undertaker would have been more appropriate.





But an ambulance would not have been sent other than to attend to the injured. They'd have looked that way to Sheila in her mind. Two ambulances in fact.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 19921




But an ambulance would not have been sent other than to attend to the injured. They'd have looked that way to Sheila in her mind. Two ambulances in fact.

Ambulances were sent in case there were casualties - this fact isn't even remotely suspicious.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 01:15:PM by Caroline »
100% GUILTY - No doubts!

Offline Jane J

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23965
It would hardly be the first thought when you intended to kill yourself. It's just another example of someone reading a documents incorrectly and making the wrong assumption.

I find it amazing how Sheila is portrayed as going from psychotic to clear thinking and back to psychotic again in the bat of an eye.

Offline Jane J

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 23965




But an ambulance would not have been sent other than to attend to the injured. They'd have looked that way to Sheila in her mind. Two ambulances in fact.

But Sheila didn't call them.