Sexism In The Case Then (85/86) And Today

[Cambridgecutie]

It is disappointing to see that sexism still exists in the case today eg:

- Claims two female members of the jury were observed crying.

- Claims doing what the defence alleges would result in SC's manicured and polished fingernails becoming damaged.

The above are sterotypical views without it seems any firm supporting evidence.

[Cambridgecutie]

Other examples can be found in the Dickinson report:

- Claims that JB corrupted JM morally and criminally

- Claims JM "indulged" freely in sex with JB despite the fact she was aware of his promiscuous behaviour with other females and males. 

- Claims SC was a physically very beautiful person

Again I find it all very stereotypical based on fairytales ie the males as being deviant and wicked and females as naive and compliant 

[Jane]

It is disappointing to see that sexism still exists in the case today eg:

- Claims two female members of the jury were observed crying.

- Claims doing what the defence alleges would result in SC's manicured and polished fingernails becoming damaged.

The above are sterotypical views without it seems any firm supporting evidence.

Re weeping females. As you've said, we're unaware of the reasons for such. Would be interesting to know what the atmosphere had been in the jury room.

The nails have always interested me. In the late 70s, I manicured mine twice a week -undercoat, two applications of varnish, and top coat- there was usually a small chip in one or more, especially thumb and forefinger................and I was only working with hair as opposed to loading/reloading a rifle! I never had acrylics back then. Not even certain such were available? Since then, I've found that acrylics last in varying degrees. Some last until they're removed, whilst others have chipped and/or lifted after only a few days. I also wonder how Sheila managed, on benefits, to get her nails done professionally, although I can accept it may have been a one off treat. With her -alleged- poor hand/eye coordination, she certainly couldn't have managed to manicure her own nails.

[ILB]

It is disappointing to see that sexism still exists in the case today eg:

- Claims two female members of the jury were observed crying.

- Claims doing what the defence alleges would result in SC's manicured and polished fingernails becoming damaged.

The above are sterotypical views without it seems any firm supporting evidence.

Sexism Has been in the case from day one, if we can class it as sexism. Interperet how you wish.

If shelia had been a brother, who knows.

" there's no way a woman can subdue a man in a fight to the death "

[ILB]

Forgive me if I sound crass, my own immediate initial thought many years ago was " there's no way a bird could have done this" I'm not going to lie. I'd wager DS Jones had a similar, if you like coloured view of this nature as well.

[Cambridgecutie]

Re weeping females. As you've said, we're unaware of the reasons for such. Would be interesting to know what the atmosphere had been in the jury room.

The nails have always interested me. In the late 70s, I manicured mine twice a week -undercoat, two applications of varnish, and top coat- there was usually a small chip in one or more, especially thumb and forefinger................and I was only working with hair as opposed to loading/reloading a rifle! I never had acrylics back then. Not even certain such were available? Since then, I've found that acrylics last in varying degrees. Some last until they're removed, whilst others have chipped and/or lifted after only a few days. I also wonder how Sheila managed, on benefits, to get her nails done professionally, although I can accept it may have been a one off treat. With her -alleged- poor hand/eye coordination, she certainly couldn't have managed to manicure her own nails.

It was BarefootDanC who questioned the reasons why.  I questioned whether or not it was true that 2 female jurors wept at the end of the trial.  I wonder if DCI Ainsley and DS Jones took along smelling salts in anticipation of 'helping' the fairer sex 

[Cambridgecutie]

Forgive me if I sound crass, my own immediate initial thought many years ago was " there's no way a bird could have done this" I'm not going to lie. I'd wager DS Jones had a similar, if you like coloured view of this nature as well.

DS Jones was imo a thick copper.  A total numbskull. 

Dr Vanezis saw no reason why a woman of SC's build was unable to do what the defence alleged. 

[Cambridgecutie]

Sexism Has been in the case from day one, if we can class it as sexism. Interperet how you wish.

If shelia had been a brother, who knows.

" there's no way a woman can subdue a man in a fight to the death "

Dr Vanezis saw no reason why a woman of SC's build was unable to do what the defence alleged.  Whose opinion do you think should take precedence over his?

[Cambridgecutie]

It is disappointing to see that sexism still exists in the case today eg:

- Claims two female members of the jury were observed crying.

- Claims doing what the defence alleges would result in SC's manicured and polished fingernails becoming damaged.

The above are sterotypical views without it seems any firm supporting evidence.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18124332-600-fingernails-have-the-strength-of-hooves/

[Roch]

I questioned whether or not it was true that 2 female jurors wept at the end of the trial.  I wonder if DCI Ainsley and DS Jones took along smelling salts in anticipation of 'helping' the fairer sex 

Given where their sympathies lay, and rather brutish approach to the case from aforementioned detectives, I think it more likely they would have given them a slap in the face (and told them to pull themselves together). 

[Cambridgecutie]

If it is true two female jurors wept you would think the media might have commented on it and/or courtroom sketch artists might have illustrated? 

Afaik the only person to claim this was DCI Ainsley which might have been sour grapes as the court did not return a unanimous verdict.

[ILB]

Dr Vanezis saw no reason why a woman of SC's build was unable to do what the defence alleged.  Whose opinion do you think should take precedence over his?

The prosecution of 1986.

[Cambridgecutie]

The prosecution of 1986.

Dr Vanezis was the HO pathologist. 

[ILB]

Dr Vanezis was the HO pathologist.

I know.

The DPP/EP at trial made a clear point that Shelia would be unable to subdue Nevill.

[ILB]

If it is true two female jurors wept you would think the media might have commented on it and/or courtroom sketch artists might have illustrated? 

Afaik the only person to claim this was DCI Ainsley which might have been sour grapes as the court did not return a unanimous verdict.

A verdict is a verdict.

If you read Ainsleys Stokenchurch interviews he is particularly affronted and offended of course of having been subject to answer to defence allegations of improper practice. Maybe he felt offended by Bambers pennerial intrusions, the case has never been deemed dead while Bamber maintains innocence.