still time for one last throw of the dice - before CCRC close case...

[ngb1066]

When I started to look into it I was surprised to find that the statement isn't made public, I would have expected it to be for transparency, otherwise people speculate in just this way. Do they have a time limit on how long they can withhold it?

It is unlikely ever to be released unless the defence choose to publish it.

[ajross]

Thank you, that's what I was expecting and no doubt that is unlikely.

[Bridget]

If the application for judicial review is accepted you may see snippets of it in any decision made by the High Court. I doubt we will ever see the whole thing somehow.

[ajross]

Thank you Bridget, I agree with your comment that it is hard to criticise the decision unless we know exactly how it came about. Unfortunately though it seems we will never know.

[Janet (Formerly known as Takeshi)]

It is unlikely ever to be released unless the defence choose to publish it.

Nick can I ask a question. If a picture of Sheila on the bed could be produced right now, what would be the best course of action and could it subjugate the whole appeal process?

[ngb1066]

Nick can I ask a question. If a picture of Sheila on the bed could be produced right now, what would be the best course of action and could it subjugate the whole appeal process?

If the picture became available now the important thing would be for Simon McKay to see it and to be given as much information about the provenance and context of the photograph as possible.  Depending upon the details it could have a dramatic impact upon the appeal process.  If for example it showed Sheila with only one wound, with the area of the second wound visible (i.e. not obscured by the photograph angle) it would form the basis for a fresh application to the CCRC which would probably be fast tracked.

 

[Roch]

If the picture became available now the important thing would be for Simon McKay to see it and to be given as much information about the provenance and context of the photograph as possible.  Depending upon the details it could have a dramatic impact upon the appeal process.  If for example it showed Sheila with only one wound, with the area of the second wound visible (i.e. not obscured by the photograph angle) it would form the basis for a fresh application to the CCRC which would probably be fast tracked.

 

Would there not be a problem if the corresponding negative was retained elsewhere, i.e. not available to the defence?

[guest154]

The negative is needed too not just the photograph. And yeah, NGB the area of the neck where the second gun shot wound is would need to be clearly visible, which it isn't. There would be no way to prove she was placed onto the bed after ebing found, or was killed there, or anything. It is a non starter. But no fast tracking would happen.

[Roch]

The negative is needed too not just the photograph. And yeah, NGB the area of the neck where the second gun shot wound is would need to be clearly visible, which it isn't. There would be no way to prove she was placed onto the bed after ebing found, or was killed there, or anything. It is a non starter. But no fast tracking would happen.

Possibly or possibly not, depending upon what would be depicted in such a photograph.  Why would anyone in attendance at the scene, photograph her in anything other than the position she was originally found in?

What is being claimed here?  Police or somebody took photos with another camera, which could then not be used to take any further photographs, due to the nature of how she received her second gunshot wound?  A different camera was needed to begin a 'new' crime scene set up?

Or is it being alleged that the same camera was used throughout but the negatives were cut from the beginning of the strip?

[guest154]

Possibly or possibly not, depending upon what would be depicted in such a photograph.  Why would anyone in attendance at the scene, photograph her in anything other than the position she was originally found in?

What is being claimed here?  Police or somebody took photos with another camera, which could then not be used to take any further photographs, due to the nature of how she received her second gunshot wound?  A different camera was needed to begin a 'new' crime scene set up?

Or is it being alleged that the same camera was used throughout but the negatives were cut from the beginning of the strip?

Same camera. I've heard of missing negatives in this case before, always assumed that they were the pictures of the twisn, which are held under PII, and one or two pictures of Sheila on the bed which are not held under PII.

Doubt the negatives are out there still - the pictures of her on the bed were a mistake so I'd expecte the negativea and the actual pictures to be destroyed, apparently though the picture on the bed still exists.

[Roch]

Doubt the negatives are out there still - the pictures of her on the bed were a mistake so I'd expect the negative and the actual pictures to be destroyed, apparently though the picture on the bed still exists.

Mat, what kind of mistake?  Surely not yet another mistake, to go along with all the other mistakes 

Does nobody on your side of the fence ever get suspicious about the staggering amount of so called 'mistakes'?

[guest154]

Mat, what kind of mistake?  Surely not yet another mistake, to go along with all the other mistakes 

Does nobody on your side of the fence ever get suspicious about the staggering amount of so called 'mistakes'?

I think I posted about this before? Sheila being moved to the bed - for whatever reason. Photogrpahed and then realising a mistake.
It's a mess yes. And it is perfect cannon fodder for anyone to try and muddy the waters. EP didn't help themselves at all.

[Roch]

And it is perfect cannon fodder for anyone to try and muddy the waters. EP didn't help themselves at all.

Moving to the bed is one thing, moving from the bed and /or photographing is another. 

If we take the line that you and Bridget seem to take, all of these blunders were hidden to prevent embarrassment to EP.  Since 2003, there seems to have been a drip fed exposure of stuff previously not known / withheld.  The defence reaction to this information is interpreted as 'muddying the waters'.

Is there no restriction upon the amount of room you allow EP to manoeuvre? You might as well say to them... "here, just do what you want... no restrictions.  We'll cover you all the way". 

I shudder to think what might happen if people like you were ever tasked with investigating police corruption....

[Bridget]

Moving to the bed is one thing, moving from the bed and /or photographing is another. 

If we take the line that you and Bridget seem to take, all of these blunders were hidden to prevent embarrassment to EP.  Since 2003, there seems to have been a drip fed exposure of stuff previously not known / withheld.  The defence reaction to this information is interpreted as 'muddying the waters'.

Is there no restriction upon the amount of room you allow EP to manoeuvre? You might as well say to them... "here, just do what you want... no restrictions.  We'll cover you all the way". 

I shudder to think what might happen if people like you were ever tasked with investigating police corruption....

Can I just say that I don't believe there is a picture of Sheila on the bed. If there is, I think it would have been taken after the photos on the floor, possibly at a time when she was being readied for removal, and therefore is evidence of nothing at all.

[Roch]

Can I just say that I don't believe there is a picture of Sheila on the bed. If there is, I think it would have been taken after the photos on the floor, possibly at a time when she was being readied for removal, and therefore is evidence of nothing at all.

In other words, you are only prepared to contemplate the existence of such a photo, if it correlates to yet another benign mistake by EP?  Anything else that could potentially indicate an alternative version to what took place that morning, must mean that no such photo exists!

Also, why would you photograph her not in-situ?