0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
But what they knew (or believed) was that Sheila had shot everyone, why would they change tack at the whim of the relatives, and at risk of their careers?
But my lovely Bridget, that is exactly what they did do, change tack. Because of the relatives, otherwise it would have stayed 4 murders and a suicide.
I have forgotten who took the hand swabs,but he admitted that he had never done it before and was not familiar with the procedure.Regarding Sheilas clothes......Junes day clothes are clearly visible on a stool? in her bedroom.In the crimescene photo of Sheilas bedroom,there doesnt appear to be any day clothes lying around.
There is clearly an item of clothing on the bed next to the one Sheila was sleeping in, I can't tell what cos the pictures here are not good quality and I'm on a phone. Plus, in the photos here less than half of Sheila's bedroom is visible.
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;
Yes. Why?
Hey Patti, Hope you are well. Vanezis makes absolutely no mention of any scratch marks, especially any vicious ones. I do tend to side with Vanezis, having actually seen the body in situ. Vicious scratch marks would surely have been seen and noted.
The Scar on Sheilas hand was old scar and unconnected to the murders, maybe thats why he didnt mention it?
Not sure if these are any clearer...
