Book Reviews - Murders/Suicide at WHF

[Bridget]

No. What I meant to say but it it came over badly was that these enquiries have shown that there was a lot of evidence that was not looked at. Like the submission of new photos of the crime scene for instance on which the CCRC ruled that the testimonies of the police officers were greater evidence than any photographic evidence. This in itself indicates that there was a gross miscarriage of justice. Mat said that any new photograph would be sufficient. But new photographic evidence WAS presented but was dismissed by the CCRC as not being evidence because the sworn police statements were stronger evidence. That surely may be the law, But it certainly is not justice. New evidence seen to be dismissed by the CCRC.

I'm not sure, are you referring to Suthersts evidence? I don't think I've ever seen that in full, is it available?

[Bridget]

Oh absolutely! If that picture existed then I'd be the first calling for it to be revealed. But other than that, I can't think of any other picture that would make a difference in this case.

I remember in one of the submissions there was a picture submitted regarding the scratch marks.....even though the actual area that was scratched wasn't fully visible.....Seriously.

Not just ANY picture can be used - it has to DIRECTLY - go against something already decided as fact in the case.

Yes, again Suthersts evidence I think.

[bloggs and son]

Maybe you've quoted me a little wrong there, Grahame. I said any photo would be sufficient for what?

Just here

Well sure, I sleep fine at night over the case because nothing has ever come forward to convince me otherwise. There has been claims over and over that new evidence has been found, a new witness, new photo, new test, phone records, recorded phone calls.............

But nothing has ever materialised.

[guest154]

Ah, right. We're talking about the same thing then. I read about it on here, someone directed me to the statement. But then I also got directed to the other forum.

The scratch marks were found not to be there on a certain date....so it was believed that they had been created after the murders and the silencer has been used to scratch, etc, etc. This was actually a pretty big thing at the time.
It completely fell apart though - mainly because the picture the expert looked at wasn't quite the right place and also because the photo was terrible quality.

Yet this was still used as evidence..

Just here

Well yeah. But within reason, Grahame.

[bloggs and son]

Yes, again Suthersts evidence I think.

No, it was something to do with the moving of Sheila's body I think? I can't be sure. I don't think it was southerst evidence? I can't be bothered to look for it tonight I'm too tired. My eyelids have broken two matchsticks already.

[Nuala]

Ah, right. We're talking about the same thing then. I read about it on here, someone directed me to the statement. But then I also got directed to the other forum.

The scratch marks were found not to be there on a certain date....so it was believed that they had been created after the murders and the silencer has been used to scratch, etc, etc. This was actually a pretty big thing at the time.
It completely fell apart though - mainly because the picture the expert looked at wasn't quite the right place and also because the photo was terrible quality.

Yet this was still used as evidence..


Well yeah. But within reason, Grahame.

Meaning...?

[bloggs and son]

Ah, right. We're talking about the same thing then. I read about it on here, someone directed me to the statement. But then I also got directed to the other forum.

The scratch marks were found not to be there on a certain date....so it was believed that they had been created after the murders and the silencer has been used to scratch, etc, etc. This was actually a pretty big thing at the time.
It completely fell apart though - mainly because the picture the expert looked at wasn't quite the right place and also because the photo was terrible quality.

Yet this was still used as evidence..


Well yeah. But within reason, Grahame.

No it wasn't that. It'll come to me tomorrow I think. My mind's not working all that well tonight. I'll look it up.

[guest154]

Meaning...?

You know what I mean, we work in the same world.
The photo would have to DIRECTLY go against something that the police claim as truth. Like Bridget said - a photo with one wound would do it.
A photo of Sheila on the bed would not.

[Nuala]

You know what I mean, we work in the same world.

No we don't

The photo would have to DIRECTLY go against something that the police claim as truth. Like Bridget said - a photo with one wound would do it.

A witness statement would do it too

A photo of Sheila on the bed would not.

[guest154]

We don't? You're the one who said we do!

Don't think a witness statement would. IMO.

[Bridget]

A witness statement would do it too

From someone who was actually there, yes.

[guest154]

From someone who was actually there, yes.

Even then, it wouldn't help at the CCRC.

[Nuala]

We don't? You're the one who said we do!

Don't think a witness statement would. IMO.

How you've described your job here does not sound like my job

[guest154]

Well we both know what we need, how to get it.. and then we go and get it.

[Nuala]

Where does that ugly rabbit avatar come from?