Due to meet informant in Glasgow tomorrow

[mike tesko]

Out of interest Mike, when was the last time you met with Ewen? It isn't an important fact so don't reserach it if you do not remember of the top of your head.

At his office in Birmingham, just before Jeremy sacked him, and took on the services of GDS, Ewen told GDS that I might be able to assist in the transfer of all the material held at Birmingham, to his office in London - but I did not take up the offer...

[ajross]

How?

What I was suggesting is that there are ways of having conversations about certain topics and getting information without breaching confidentiality or speaking directy about a topic. I don't mean this subject in particular, I mean very generally. If somebody wants information (not necessarily Mat) they will find a way of getting it.

[vidvic]

Here's another from the greatest hits album....read it from the beginning....hillarious

[vidvic]

I do not believe I am wrong, on the contrary I am right, and yes, the photographs of Sheila on the bed do exist, and at the right moment and in favourable circumstances they will be produced...

Come on then.... produce it.

[Jane]

Come on then.... produce it.

Good heavens, that was 3 years and 4 months ago.

[vidvic]

Good heavens, that was 3 years and 4 months ago.

You would think that he would have dug it out by now, seeing it gets 'Jerry' out of jail.

[Jane]

You would think that he would have dug it out by now, seeing it gets 'Jerry' out of jail.

I did voice my concern at the time -I was then a supporter- because I felt that rather than talking about it, he should be doing something about it but apparently the time wasn't right. It occurred to me that if I was in prison for something I hadn't done and a "friend" was withholding information that could free me, it would cause me to wonder just how much of a friend that person was. As I now believe him to be guilty, it's just as well, if such a picture ever existed, that it wasn't handed lover.

[lookout]

This is what I can't understand with the OS as to why they don't publicise via the media the information that's been tweeted and put it to a public vote if they want more signatures/votes.

[vidvic]

I did voice my concern at the time -I was then a supporter- because I felt that rather than talking about it, he should be doing something about it but apparently the time wasn't right. It occurred to me that if I was in prison for something I hadn't done and a "friend" was withholding information that could free me, it would cause me to wonder just how much of a friend that person was. As I now believe him to be guilty, it's just as well, if such a picture ever existed, that it wasn't handed lover.

It only exists in his imagination.

[Steve_uk]

I wonder if Dr. Hugh Cameron Ferguson has changed his mind since the 1986 trial when he stated he didn't think Sheila was capable of killing her children. If the Defence could get a statement from him to that effect it would be on a par with the Dean Cottle evidence in the David Bain trial or even more so. http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/60642/cottle-well-aware-duty-testify-investigator

[Jane]

I wonder if Dr. Hugh Cameron Ferguson has changed his mind since the 1986 trial when he stated he didn't think Sheila was capable of killing her children. If the Defence could get a statement from him to that effect it would be on a par with the Dean Cottle evidence in the David Bain trial or even more so. http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/60642/cottle-well-aware-duty-testify-investigator

CAL acknowledges him in her book by saying that he and his wife welcomed her into their home when they discussed his care of Sheila and June in St Andrews.

[scipio_usmc]

I wonder if Dr. Hugh Cameron Ferguson has changed his mind since the 1986 trial when he stated he didn't think Sheila was capable of killing her children. If the Defence could get a statement from him to that effect it would be on a par with the Dean Cottle evidence in the David Bain trial or even more so. http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/60642/cottle-well-aware-duty-testify-investigator

Ferguson changing his mind means nothing. A new assessment of old evidence is not new evidence. The defense tried to get his change of heart in by saying he was not provided access to Colin's letter and thus didn't have all the facts.  That failed though because the letter was never sent so it is impossible for the parents to have brought up such letter to Sheila.

[Jane]

Ferguson changing his mind means nothing. A new assessment of old evidence is not new evidence. The defense tried to get his change of heart in by saying he was not provided access to Colin's letter and thus didn't have all the facts.  That failed though because the letter was never sent so it is impossible for the parents to have brought up such letter to Sheila.

As both psychiatry and psychology have moved on apace since the 70's/80's it would be truly surprising had not some of his thinking been revised.

[scipio_usmc]

As both psychiatry and psychology have moved on apace since the 70's/80's it would be truly surprising had not some of his thinking been revised.

Psychological assessments mean little, they can' impact the evidence which convicted Jeremy.  The main evidence that convicted Jeremy is evidence that he was planning to frame her, a lack of physical evidence that would have been present on her body had she killed the others and evidence proving she can't have killed herself someone else murdered her.  The only way to get a new trial is to find something that undermines this. 

Let's pretend they found evidence she threatened to kill her mother.  Would such establish she could have killed the others without getting evidence on herself or could have killed herself?  No!  So it's not able to warrant a new trial. It is not an accident that they keep trying to find a way to undermine the moderator evidence and Julie's testimony. This is the evidence hey have to undermine in order to get a new trial. Concentrating on other aspects is not going to accomplish a thing. 

[Jane]

Psychological assessments mean little, they can' impact the evidence which convicted Jeremy.  The main evidence that convicted Jeremy is evidence that he was planning to frame her, a lack of physical evidence that would have been present on her body had she killed the others and evidence proving she can't have killed herself someone else murdered her.  The only way to get a new trial is to find something that undermines this. 

Let's pretend they found evidence she threatened to kill her mother.  Would such establish she could have killed the others without getting evidence on herself or could have killed herself?  No!  So it's not able to warrant a new trial. It is not an accident that they keep trying to find a way to undermine the moderator evidence and Julie's testimony. This is the evidence hey have to undermine in order to get a new trial. Concentrating on other aspects is not going to accomplish a thing.

What on earth are you assuming I said to warrant such a lecture? ALL I said was that psychiatry and psychology have moved on since the time of the trial so it would be surprising if he hadn't revised his thinking. I was neither hinting nor suggesting a new trial and I don't believe Ferguson said anything new which could point in that direction, either.