How I Iost the photo` of Sheila on the Bed...

[Patti]

Hang on a minute. Isn't this fresh evidence?

[ajross]

yes I have. When I came on here people didn't believe me..but now Mike as come out and told you.. Sheila is laid on the bed in her nightie, the shot was taken at the foot of the bed...but Mike could put it on here, and show you..it still won't make a difference because it wasn't used in his case.

Mike has stated that he has also shown it to another member of the forum but that he doesn't wish to name them, which is fine, it would however help if they came forward.

HMEssex - I think Mat may be suggesting that he has won me over although I was never 'against' him or anybody. I quite liked Hartley too beofe he left but because, without a sound board for arguements, I think a lot of it is specualtion and going around in circles.

[ajross]

Hang on a minute. Isn't this fresh evidence?

What has been suggested is that he can only appeal on the evidence he was convicted on but this has also been dsputed and I don't think there has been any concrete clarification. Personally (and I am probably wrong) I believe that if this information was withheld at the time under the dreaded PII business he may have grounds to appeal as it would have obstructed his team from preparing a true and proper defence (but I do not know this and am speculating using limited knowledge)

[tez28]

Can you tell us what else was "significant" about the photograph?
Did anything "stand out" to you as being a little strange?

THE PHOTOGRAPH WAS TAKEN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BED.. IT WAS SHOT THROUGH THE FOOT BOARD, SO YOU CAN SEE THE GAPS IN THE FOOT BOARD.. SHEILA BLESS HER IS LAID ON THE BED, HER NIGHTIE WAS RAISED UP, SHE WASN'T WEARING UNDERWEAR, A BIT PORNOGRAPHIC..IF MIKE IS READING THIS ...WHY DON'T YOU JUST PUT IT ON? I'M SURE YOU CAN RETRIEVE IT!DON'T KNOW WHY IT HASN'T BEEN PUT ON HERE OR RELEASED TO THE PAPERS BEFORE NOW, IT WON'T HELP HIM...BUT IT WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC'S EYES FURTHER TO THE CORRUPTION THAT CAN LIE WITHIN SOME CERTAIN DEPARTMENTS... THE WHOLE NATION AS A RIGHT TO KNOW!!!

[guest154]

You've now just lost my interest.

[Patti]

What has been suggested is that he can only appeal on the evidence he was convicted on but this has also been dsputed and I don't think there has been any concrete clarification. Personally (and I am probably wrong) I believe that if this information was withheld at the time under the dreaded PII business he may have grounds to appeal as it would have obstructed his team from preparing a true and proper defence (but I do not know this and am speculating using limited knowledge)

J
Hi ajross.  I must admit I had not believed that the photo existed, but now someone on the forum have said they have seen it.

I don't understand all the legalities ajross...it just goes whoosh to me. But, if I had such a photo, I would make sure everyone knew about it, for it shows the jury were deprived of a photo, that could have swayed them into believing that Shelia's body was a staged picture that the CPS had shown them.....

Ha! I think I will have a tipple....lol  

[HMEssex]

Mike has stated that he has also shown it to another member of the forum but that he doesn't wish to name them, which is fine, it would however help if they came forward.

HMEssex - I think Mat may be suggesting that he has won me over although I was never 'against' him or anybody. I quite liked Hartley too beofe he left but because, without a sound board for arguements, I think a lot of it is specualtion and going around in circles.

That's fair enough, and I agree we need soundboards for discussions etc., but I found his post last night re JM rather 'creepy'.

[guest154]

That's fair enough, and I agree we need soundboards for discussions etc., but I found his post last night re JM rather 'creepy'.

You must have mis-interpreted it then.

[Bridget]

Doley has it completely backwards. Evidence used as grounds for appeal must be new evidence.

[Roch]

You've now just lost my interest.

He described it as it was previously described by Mike.

[guest154]

The none panties may be true. But THAT being visible in the photograph...isn't. Mark my words, if Mike ever posts the photograph.......or anyone does and it is published online/in the papers it won't be crude like that.

Maybe Mike siad that so he had an excuse to not post it on the forum - but really there was another reason why he didn't want to post it at that time.

[HMEssex]

He described it as it was previously described by Mike.

Perhaps he has just read Mike's posts.

[HMEssex]

You must have mis-interpreted it then.

Mat, it was the way you worded it.

[ajross]

That's fair enough, and I agree we need soundboards for discussions etc., but I found his post last night re JM rather 'creepy'.

I'm not sure I saw it, sorry. There has been some lamentable behaviour on the part of several members but it seems par for the course unfortnately. If people could have these debates without that I think that it would be a lot more productive

[ajross]

Doley has it completely backwards. Evidence used as grounds for appeal must be new evidence.

Thank you Bridget!