what new evidence?

[susan]

Morning Grahame

IF any new evidence has been discovered we will not be told about it only the Legal Team and Jeremy will know.  We just think something good is going to happen because Jeremy said something had turned up and he was bursting to tell us but was not allowed.

[Jane]

Since nobody here is capabl of answering my question can I assume from this that all this NEW evidence that folk keep going on about is all just hype and that in reality there has been no new evidence discovered since the original trial?

Grahame, from my present understanding, I see no more EVIDENCE of NEW evidence than I saw when I first joined the forum. HOWEVER, I DO believe that we have thrown up one or two facts which COULD be made use of for Jeremy's benefit.

[maggie]

Since nobody here is capabl of answering my question can I assume from this that all this NEW evidence that folk keep going on about is all just hype and that in reality there has been no new evidence discovered since the original trial?

Hi Grahame, of course you are absolutely correct. There has  been quite a bit of new evidence discovered since the original trial. Much of this evidence is discussed by Scott Lomax in his book, the guilters don't much like the new evidence which mainly supports Jeremy's innocence claim and is labelled as 'biased'.
I agree the new evidence does need gathering together and listing on  this site. I am unable to do this at the moment due to other commitments but would certainly be happy to support anyone who may be willing to take this project on.
Well said Grahame. 

[grahameb]

Hi Grahame, of course you are absolutely correct. There has  been quite a bit of new evidence discovered since the original trial. Much of this evidence is discussed by Scott Lomax in his book, the guilters don't much like the new evidence which mainly supports Jeremy's innocence claim and is labelled as 'biased'.
I agree the new evidence does need gathering together and listing on  this site. I am unable to do this at the moment due to other commitments but would certainly be happy to support anyone who may be willing to take this project on.
Well said Grahame. 

Well Maggie if this is so what is this evidence that has been discovered since the trial? I don't mean the LATEST apparent evidence that only Bamber and his leagal team are supposed to be privvy to.
Is that anybody on the forum who can detail this mountain of evidence? We mention it quite frequently. But all seem loath to list it? We sai that the guilters don't like the new evidence. But are we prepared to list it without going round the houses talking about everything under the Sun except the so called new evidence? Let me start:
(1) The other telephone log that SEEMS to undermine the original log?
Now can anyone follow on from that? Because then we can begin to discuss the pros and cons of this new evidence.

[Jane]

A bloodied hand/palm print tying in the bible and the blue nightdress.

[grahameb]

So we have:
(1) The other telephone log that SEEMS to undermine the original log?
(2) A bloodied hand/palm print tying in the bible and the blue nightdress. To that I will add:
(3) The picture of the sole of Sheila's foot.

[Jane]

So we have:
(1) The other telephone log that SEEMS to undermine the original log?
(2) A bloodied hand/palm print tying in the bible and the blue nightdress. To that I will add:
(3) The picture of the sole of Sheila's foot.

Can aything be pulled from what Dr F DID say of Sheila but was NEVER said in court?

[maggie]

So we have:
(1) The other telephone log that SEEMS to undermine the original log?
(2) A bloodied hand/palm print tying in the bible and the blue nightdress. To that I will add:
(3) The picture of the sole of Sheila's foot.

Sheila's hand swabs hardly showed any deposits. We know Sheila's palms were blooded from Vanezies' handwritten notes. The hand swabs said to be Sheila's would have showed elements of blood ie. Iron, magnesium, etc. at quite high levels but there were only traces. This asks the question .... were Sheila's hands washed before they were swabbed or were the swabs from someone else?
Therefore, evidence that Sheila's hand swabs which were stated to be clean of gun oil etc. Were suspect.

[susan]

Hi Maggie  good point her hands were either washed or the swabs were from somebody else the point being if something has to be hidden something not true about it and it seems so much of this has been going on in this case and a fine example all the forensic evidence burnt against the Courts orders somebody desperate to cover up and went into panic mode What an absolute disgrace they were allowed to get away with it.

[lookout]

Can aything be pulled from what Dr F DID say of Sheila but was NEVER said in court?

April,,according to psychiatric reports ( supported documentation ) Dr.Ferguson had explained to Mr Justice Drake,,via a report,that Sheilas' illness had centred on her children who she referred to as the " Devils Children. Also in the report was that the Devil had possessed her and had given her the power to carry out this evil.
Sheila also told the doctor that she could project this evil on to others,,then continued with her bizzare concerns about her children having sex with her and carrying out violent actions upon her.
The doctor also wrote that Sheila self-harmed as well as expressing thoughts of a suicidal nature and had said that she was capable of murdering her sons. Sheila had mentioned to the doctor about being exorcised to remove the Devil from within herself/body,and if this wasn't possible,,then she would have to die.
The time that Sheila had punched one of the twins was when he interrupted a conversation.

Now here's Justice Drakes' punch-line-----------" Sheila had no reason to harm,or kill her children ".
This little gem was in his summing up,to the jury.

A Doctor Dodds,who was a psychiatrist at a hospital where Sheila was staying,and who knew Sheila from 1977 to 1983,,offered to make a statement concerning Sheilas' mental health,,and as a consequence,police officers were asked to go along and see Dr Dodds,,but then later were told not to take a statement from him ?? This doctor was a potential witness who wasn't allowed to support the defence team at the time.

[lookout]

Jeremy had no knowledge of who Sheilas' doctor was at the time. That's how much notice he took,,considering that the guilters thought that Jeremy followed her every move on the subject of mental health so that he could " emulate " her position as regards the killings.

[Jane]

April,,according to psychiatric reports ( supported documentation ) Dr.Ferguson had explained to Mr Justice Drake,,via a report,that Sheilas' illness had centred on her children who she referred to as the " Devils Children. Also in the report was that the Devil had possessed her and had given her the power to carry out this evil.
Sheila also told the doctor that she could project this evil on to others,,then continued with her bizzare concerns about her children having sex with her and carrying out violent actions upon her.
The doctor also wrote that Sheila self-harmed as well as expressing thoughts of a suicidal nature and had said that she was capable of murdering her sons. Sheila had mentioned to the doctor about being exorcised to remove the Devil from within herself/body,and if this wasn't possible,,then she would have to die.
The time that Sheila had punched one of the twins was when he interrupted a conversation.

Now here's Justice Drakes' punch-line-----------" Sheila had no reason to harm,or kill her children ".
This little gem was in his summing up,to the jury.

A Doctor Dodds,who was a psychiatrist at a hospital where Sheila was staying,and who knew Sheila from 1977 to 1983,,offered to make a statement concerning Sheilas' mental health,,and as a consequence,police officers were asked to go along and see Dr Dodds,,but then later were told not to take a statement from him ?? This doctor was a potential witness who wasn't allowed to support the defence team at the time.

WOW!!!!! Lookout, thank-you SO much for that information. As it hasn't previously been used, can it now BE put forward as crucial evidence.

[susan]

Yes lookout thanks for that information I always knew you were Miss Marples under cover

[lookout]

Sheilas' reduction in medication was never taken into account at the time. Where the court were told that Sheila would have been in sedated mode,,wasn't true. Sheila had taken too much Procyclidene which would have rendered her more alert and ready for anything,,particularly confronting her father in a desperate struggle. The jury weren't told of the effects of Procyclidene,,which,because Sheila took a high dose of,would have counteracted with the Haloperidol,branding it useless as a calminative.

[lookout]

WOW!!!!! Lookout, thank-you SO much for that information. As it hasn't previously been used, can it now BE put forward as crucial evidence.

Be my guest,April.