Guilty?

[Bridget]

So you believe the CPS showed the court trying SH , a true version of events without falsifying anything ?

I think the crown based their case on flawed and incomplete evidence, not falsified, no.

[Roch]

So the forensic scientists who tested the blood on the nightie are in on it too?

No I'm not saying that.  I'm just very sceptical regarding some prosecution claims.  For example, I do not believe a true representation has been made in respect of the hand swabs.  Yes, I know it has been dismissed already.  But I'm also mindful that just because ritual washing was dismissed, doesn't mean it did not occur.

[Bridget]

No I'm not saying that.  I'm just very sceptical regarding some prosecution claims.  For example, I do not believe a true representation has been made in respect of the hand swabs.  Yes, I know it has been dismissed already.  But I'm also mindful that just because ritual washing was dismissed, doesn't mean it did not occur.

Well the hand swabs were what they were - clean. If that can be explained by ritual washing before she killed herself, fine. But what about residue from the two shots she made to herself, where is that?

[Roch]

Well the hand swabs were what they were - clean. If that can be explained by ritual washing before she killed herself, fine. But what about residue from the two shots she made to herself, where is that?

I've just been kicking my self because I realised that was how you would interpret my post.  What I was trying to convey is...

Clean hand swabs = too clean to be true (?)

Ritual washing (?) = changed clothes (?)

[lebaleb]

I would like to know why there is no residue since her hand was on the gun. Why does it have to be 'ritual' washing... why not just a wash.

[jon]

I think the crown based their case on flawed and incomplete evidence, not falsified, no.

So every person called by the prosecution told the truth as they knew it at the time ? Was anything withheld ? Did i read Stephanie once make a claim about something being withheld ? My memory maybe playing tricks here !!

[Bridget]

So every person called by the prosecution told the truth as they knew it at the time ? Was anything withheld ? Did i read Stephanie once make a claim about something being withheld ? My memory maybe playing tricks here !!

They've had some trouble getting hold of some evidence, the CCTV footage from his route home springs to mind, and some witness statements, there's probably more. Remember that the only evidence that pointed towards Simon was the fibres, and that evidence is the subject of a difference of opinion between experts.

[Bridget]

I've just been kicking my self because I realised that was how you would interpret my post.  What I was trying to convey is...

Clean hand swabs = too clean to be true (?)

Ritual washing (?) = changed clothes (?)

So... The hand swab evidence was falsified, is that what you're saying? And where are the clothes she changed out of?

[Roch]

So... The hand swab evidence was falsified, is that what you're saying? And where are the clothes she changed out of?

Yes re the swabs.  Falsified for the purpose of arguing the case that it was not Sheila.  Just as I suspect that police came up with the idea that the silencer could be used as a 'prop' to also argue the same?

Re any items taken from the scene, perhaps the original handwritten SOC register might come in handy? 

[Patti]

Hello Lookout, Where is it documented that June and Nevill had fingernail marks on their arms?

Hi Si...

Scott Lomax had first hand knowledge of many documents etc that was not handed over to the defence. Scott says he has seen many photographs too...this is what he said about the scratch marks...

Some of the most persuasive arguments for Jeremy’s defence, which were never presented to the jury because the police hid the evidence until recent years, are: the fact that the police were in conversation with someone who, if Jeremy was guilty, must have been dead; that hidden photographs show Jeremy’s parents both had their arms viciously scratched by someone with long nails at around the time of their death;

 

[Bridget]

Yes re the swabs.  Falsified for the purpose of arguing the case that it was not Sheila.  Just as I suspect that police came up with the idea that the silencer could be used as a 'prop' to also argue the same?

Re any items taken from the scene, perhaps the original handwritten SOC register might come in handy?

Well I'm guessing that will have been falsified too... 

Why on earth would they go to all of that effort and risk to frame JB when they had the perfect suspect - Sheila, laying there with a gun in her hands and not able to deny that she had done it?

[Patti]

Well I'm guessing that will have been falsified too... 

Why on earth would they go to all of that effort and risk to frame JB when they had the perfect suspect - Sheila, laying there with a gun in her hands and not able to deny that she had done it?

I would imagine pressure Bridget. 40 unsolved crimes in Essex...plus pressure from the family too....

I don't think they wanted to frame him, it was a case of not understanding what to do with such a high profile case...It was an easy pin. 

[Bridget]

I would imagine pressure Bridget. 40 unsolved crimes in Essex...plus pressure from the family too....

I don't think they wanted to frame him, it was a case of not understanding what to do with such a high profile case...It was an easy pin. 

But it was 'solved' - Sheila dunnit..

[Patti]

But it was 'solved' - Sheila dunnit..

Bridget, you know that is not true....either way....this is why he deserves a retrial. 

[Bridget]

Bridget, you know that is not true....either way....this is why he deserves a retrial. 

Aha! So you agree that Sheila didn't do it then.

I don't think there's any chance of a retrial after 27 years.