Was \the Jury Fully Aware That Sheila's Medication Hadn't Been Checked In The 18

[Jane]

 Most of us are now fully cognisant of the dangers of playing "Russian Roulette" with anti psychotic drugs which need to be very carefully monitored. Whilst back in 1985 the general public were ignorant of this fact, it's my contention that the "experts" weren't. Might it therefore have given jurors some pause for thought had they known what effect the sudden HALVING of this drug could have on a person .

[Steve_uk]

Most of us are now fully cognisant of the dangers of playing "Russian Roulette" with anti psychotic drugs which need to be very carefully monitored. Whilst back in 1985 the general public were ignorant of this fact, it's my contention that the "experts" weren't. Might it therefore have given jurors some pause for thought had they known what effect the sudden HALVING of this drug could have on a person .

But though Sheila was a good suspect she was not on trial as such. Her drug was halved because she would feel drowsy throughout the day,in which state she remained right up to the moment of her death.

[Alias]

But though Sheila was a good suspect she was not on trial as such. Her drug was halved because she would feel drowsy throughout the day,in which state she remained right up to the moment of her death.

 
You are assuming but stating it as fact.

[Jane]

But though Sheila was a good suspect she was not on trial as such. Her drug was halved because she would feel drowsy throughout the day,in which state she remained right up to the moment of her death.

No Steve, it was halved in error. The GP was instructed by Dr F to reduce it by one quarter. A locum, for whatever reason and without consultation at a higher level, reduced it by a half. Also to be considered is that, if I recall correctly, the judge told the jury that it could only have been Jeremy or Sheila, under which circumstances I would have deemed it more appropriate had the jury been fully informed about Sheila.

[Jan]

But though Sheila was a good suspect she was not on trial as such. Her drug was halved because she would feel drowsy throughout the day,in which state she remained right up to the moment of her death.

But as the Judge asserted it could have only been her or Jeremy that had carried out the murders then she should have been? Which Is why I could never understand the police actions . If it was Murder suicide it still should have been properly investigated and evidence should never have been destroyed and the scene should have been properly forensically inspected .

[Steve_uk]

But as the Judge asserted it could have only been her or Jeremy that had carried out the murders then she should have been? Which Is why I could never understand the police actions . If it was Murder suicide it still should have been properly investigated and evidence should never have been destroyed and the scene should have been properly forensically inspected .

Dr. Ferguson,Edmund Lawson,Geoffrey Rivlin,Dr.John Bradley,Professor Bernard Knight all testified fairly in my opinion and I'm sure the jury were left in no doubt that a woman with such a psychiatric history could in theory have committed the murders.

[Jane]

Dr. Ferguson,Edmund Lawson,Geoffrey Rivlin,Dr.John Bradley,Professor Bernard Knight all testified fairly in my opinion and I'm sure the jury were left in no doubt that a woman with such a psychiatric history could in theory have committed the murders.

FAIRLY Steve? When not ONE of them had seen her other than Dr F does it not follow that they gave their views based on what HE had told them and HE hadn't seen her for 18 weeks prior to her death. The jury was NOT fully informed.

[Alias]

FAIRLY Steve? When not ONE of them had seen her other than Dr F does it not follow that they gave their views based on what HE had told them and HE hadn't seen her for 18 weeks prior to her death. The jury was NOT fully informed.

I believe you are right. Dr. Ferguson would have been busy washing his hands in regards to Sheila´s misl-treatment, and of course he would say that she would not have been capable of committing such crimes!! It was in his interest to divert attention from his mistakes! How can he say that about a woman who says that: ALL PEOPLE ARE EVIL AND SHOULD DIE, and: DANIEL AND NICHOLAS WERE WOMEN HATERS WHO SHE WAS AFRAID WOULD RAPE AND KILL HER!!!

We all know that colleagues cover for colleagues. Just see what steve does for Julie here! 

[Jane]

I believe you are right. Dr. Ferguson would have been busy washing his hands in regards to Sheila´s misl-treatment, and of course he would say that she would not have been capable of committing such crimes!! It was in his interest to divert attention from his mistakes! How can he say that about a woman who says that: ALL PEOPLE ARE EVIL AND SHOULD DIE, and: DANIEL AND NICHOLAS WERE WOMEN HATERS WHO SHE WAS AFRAID WOULD RAPE AND KILL HER!!!

We all know that colleagues cover for colleagues. Just see what steve does for Julie here! 

Not only Steve, Alias. I once raised the point with someone who had connections to...........and asked if they would have been happy with the treatment/after care Sheila received had she been one of their family. They said they would. With agendas like that in play, it's hardly surprising that mistakes are able to be covered up.

[Steve_uk]

Not only Steve, Alias. I once raised the point with someone who had connections to...........and asked if they would have been happy with the treatment/after care Sheila received had she been one of their family. They said they would. With agendas like that in play, it's hardly surprising that mistakes are able to be covered up.

I'm certainly not covering for Julie,nor am I a fan of generic Establishment figures such as Harley Street's Dr. Hugh Ferguson. But I have read the evidence and made up my own mind which for the main is resolute just as is Mike's,Lookout's and yourself on the other side. Of course as the economist John Maynard Keynes once said: "When the facts change I change my opinion" and  I await developments,though I'm not  holding my breath..

[Steve_uk]

Steve, I have a question for you - when did Julie first go to Canada? Was it after she was married or did she visit when she was Seeing Jeremy? It's not a trick question, I genuinely want to know. I'm sute someone said she went when she was seeing Jeremy but I might have imagine it. Cheers!!

She stayed in London teaching for a further two years,but like many decided to take some time off from a stressful job and met her Canadian husband on a world trip. They married in Essex but as far as I'm aware she had not previously been to Canada.