Beyond Reasonable Doubt

[Patti]

It could, but Vanezis gives a much more detailed description of her hands.

Also the way he specifically states that the tops of her feet lacked blood staining, indicates to me that his report is more accurate.

Hi Hartley I can agree to a point that Vanezes gave a more accurate account, but he failed in my opinion to expand and answer fully regarding the cleanness of her feet.  I know this is a small detail, but it shows that not everything has been revealed.  Had this been revealed at trial, then the jury may have taken this into account.   

[lookout]

Good morning Gillian,,and thankyou for this enlightening news.,
My daughter works with retired police on border control,,and one of the guys last year had said pretty much the same as the retired DI in your post,,and he couldn't understand how it went to trial at the time and said he was awaiting the forensic report/evidence------------which didn't appear.

However,,I remember this case vividly back in 1985,,and my first thoughts were that Jeremy hadn't done it. At that point I was obviously trying to fathom out who had,,but with no internet at the time,I wasn't able to keep track of how the case was going,,until years later when I back-tracked after joining this forum 18 months ago. It all became clear after reading posts from the archives,,and having also been a nurse in a then " asylum " that it wasn't impossible for Sheila to have committed the murders,then taken her own life,,having had dealings with these sick people.


Nothing,,at any time,convinced me that it was Jeremy,,who'd been made a terrible scapegoat for these crimes,,had committed anything.He's told the truth all along and never faltered in his belief of himself that he's totally and wholly innocent.

Let's hope that this is the first chapter in his quest for his longed-for freedom.

[No-Bits]

Hi Hartley I can agree to a point that Vanezes gave a more accurate account, but he failed in my opinion to expand and answer fully regarding the cleanness of her feet.  I know this is a small detail, but it shows that not everything has been revealed.  Had this been revealed at trial, then the jury may have taken this into account.   

Perhaps, but I think a certain amount of caution should be applied, just because something hasn't been revealed on this forum, it doesn't necessarily mean that the information wasn't available to the defence.

[Caroline R]

I notice a definite change in the tone of this article in comparison to others in the past. Interesting that EP had no comment to make!! I never doubted her feet weren't clean and her hands aren't either, you can see blood on the ball of her thumb.

Well, done Andrew Hunter will look forward to his book!!

[Patti]

Perhaps, but I think a certain amount of caution should be applied, just because something hasn't been revealed on this forum, it doesn't necessarily mean that the information wasn't available to the defence.

Well, if it was available to the defence then why did they not reveal this in the 2002 appeal?  Surely if they had known about it they would not have said that its inconceivable to think that Sheila could not have blood on beneath her feet...They would have produced the photograph as a means of gaining a point during their argument..

[Jane]

Thanks go to Gillian for making us all aware of this story.x

I would also like to say a HUGE thankyou to Gillian. By following the link and then going on to read the comments I learned, quite clearly, the difference between a silencer and a moderator. I'd previously interchanged the words thinking they were more or less the same thing, BUT it seems that a moderator is attached to a rifle to muffle the sound when shooting animals and doesn't, as I'd believed, render the shot soundless. It's absolutely for certain sure that Jeremy would have known the difference between the two........................but did the jury?.....................and was a moderator ever used anyway?

[Caroline R]

I would also like to say a HUGE thankyou to Gillian. By following the link and then going on to read the comments I learned, quite clearly, the difference between a silencer and a moderator. I'd previously interchanged the words thinking they were more or less the same thing, BUT it seems that a moderator is attached to a rifle to muffle the sound when shooting animals and doesn't, as I'd believed, render the shot soundless. It's absolutely for certain sure that Jeremy would have known the difference between the two........................but did the jury?.....................and was a moderator ever used anyway?

This is interesting - read the comment by the guy who made the video in the comments section further down the page!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGSJRCxP59Q

[No-Bits]

Well, if it was available to the defence then why did they not reveal this in the 2002 appeal?  Surely if they had known about it they would not have said that its inconceivable to think that Sheila could not have blood on beneath her feet...They would have produced the photograph as a means of gaining a point during their argument..

Well they certainly had Vanezis report referring to the tops of Sheilas feet being clean, because it was then passed on to Mike and posted on this forum.

I'm not convinced the cleanliness of Sheilas feet is/was as big a deal as what is being made out. I would have expected exactly that amount of blood on the soles of her feet due to blood drips from June on the carpet where Sheila was found.

Perhaps the clean feet comments were relative to the amounts of blood elsewhere in the crime scene.

[Jane]

This is interesting - read the comment by the guy who made the video in the comments section further down the page!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGSJRCxP59Q

So, if I've got it right, by using a moderator, the sound produced is reduced by 30 decibels. Why would such a small reduction be of any importance in a house situated down a track off a lane off a country road in the middle of the night?

[Caroline R]

So, if I've got it right, by using a moderator, the sound produced is reduced by 30 decibels. Why would such a small reduction be of any importance in a house situated down a track off a lane off a country road in the middle of the night?

It wouldn't - I don't believe the moderator was ever used anyway.

[Caroline R]

Well they certainly had Vanezis report referring to the tops of Sheilas feet being clean, because it was then passed on to Mike and posted on this forum.

I'm not convinced the cleanliness of Sheilas feet is/was as big a deal as what is being made out. I would have expected exactly that amount of blood on the soles of her feet due to blood drips from June on the carpet where Sheila was found.

Perhaps the clean feet comments were relative to the amounts of blood elsewhere in the crime scene.

Spotlessly clean and relatively clean are two very different things.

[lookout]

So, if I've got it right, by using a moderator, the sound produced is reduced by 30 decibels. Why would such a small reduction be of any importance in a house situated down a track off a lane off a country road in the middle of the night?

Hi April.It wouldn't have been of any importance at all. When I've read certain links about the silencer and moderator,,they've been linked together as meaning one item,,but in fact,,they're two very different  items. My guess is that the jury also thought that they were both one and the same,,which to the uneducated is a misleading part of any inquiry.

[Patti]

Well they certainly had Vanezis report referring to the tops of Sheilas feet being clean, because it was then passed on to Mike and posted on this forum.

I'm not convinced the cleanliness of Sheilas feet is/was as big a deal as what is being made out. I would have expected exactly that amount of blood on the soles of her feet due to blood drips from June on the carpet where Sheila was found.

Perhaps the clean feet comments were relative to the amounts of blood elsewhere in the crime scene.

And someone forgot to question him on the soles of her feet? We also have two police officers saying her feet were clean, the fact is they wasn't clean, they had blood on them....

I don't think its a major issue, but its certainly is an issue, in the respect that vital information was not given at the time of the 1986 trial and the two appeals.   

[Caroline R]

Hi April.It wouldn't have been of any importance at all. When I've read certain links about the silencer and moderator,,they've been linked together as meaning one item,,but in fact,,they're two very different  items. My guess is that the jury also thought that they were both one and the same,,which to the uneducated is a misleading part of any inquiry.

I'm not sure that they are that different Lookout - I've read quite a few articles on moderators/silencers and they use the terms interchangeably and there is lots of info that states they are the same thing and do the same job. 

[Jane]

It wouldn't - I don't believe the moderator was ever used anyway.

So suggesting it WAS used would have been the first practical step, as opposed to just a "hunch", in getting Jeremy convicted, because if it could be put forward strongly enough that a moderator was used, it makes it almost impossible for Sheila to have shot herself.