Author Topic: what new evidence?  (Read 27990 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: what new evidence?
« Reply #45 on: March 17, 2014, 12:39:PM »
I'm afraid the jury were misled on lots of things during the trial.
Grahame could be kept busy by listing everything that was omitted. Blimey,,you could build a case on omissions alone.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33781
Re: what new evidence?
« Reply #46 on: March 17, 2014, 12:40:PM »
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, I've read SO many contradicting reports on what was found to be in her system that I've become confused. However, I fee certain I recall reading that little of ANYTHING was found as a direct result of the Haloperidol being reduced so drastically which untimately lead to her forgetting/refusing to take her counterbalancing meds because she believed them to be unnecessary.

Offline grahameb

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 11830
Re: what new evidence?
« Reply #47 on: March 17, 2014, 01:06:PM »
I'm afraid the jury were misled on lots of things during the trial.
Grahame could be kept busy by listing everything that was omitted. Blimey,,you could build a case on omissions alone.
Could you begin listing a few of those things lookout? That might be interesting.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: what new evidence?
« Reply #48 on: March 17, 2014, 01:21:PM »

Lookout, I've read SO many contradicting reports on what was found to be in her system that I've become confused. However, I fee certain I recall reading that little of ANYTHING was found as a direct result of the Haloperidol being reduced so drastically which untimately lead to her forgetting/refusing to take her counterbalancing meds because she believed them to be unnecessary.





April,,I think the judge found such information irrelevent to the case,when everyone was focussed on Jeremy. It was such a one-sided affair that most will agree on that score.
Nobody seemed particularly up-front when it came to Sheila at all,,even down to the professionals who'd stated that the woman was " clean ". Lack of nail-scrapings from any of the adults too,,which should automatically form part of any investigation.
Very little information came forthwith on any of the deceased when you think about it. I would imagine that any further information held on the family will be either with EP or PII.

It was Doctor Ferguson who'd noted that Sheila had taken more Procyclidene than was " needed ",shall we say.Because of the higher dose of Haloperidol,originally,it was necessary to take 4 tablets a day of the Procyclidene in which to counteract or combat the side-effects of Haloperidol. When the Haloperidol was reduced,Sheila had continued to used the same dose of Procyclidene,,which was too much, given that the Haloperidol had been reduced.This is why Sheila would have been hyped up at the time.
The behaviour in this case would have been happiness and elation at first,,then a complete switch to " madness ". Once the balance of this type of medication is disturbed,it's a disaster.
Only the Haloperidol would have been found in her system because it was administered intramuscularly as opposed to orally where it would have been flushed by the kidneys eventually.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: what new evidence?
« Reply #49 on: March 17, 2014, 01:32:PM »
Could you begin listing a few of those things lookout? That might be interesting.





Grahame,,I'll have to physically write a list first,,otherwise my mind goes blank when I'm confronted with such a task. ;D However,,I'll start one.
There are some in a few posts today,already. Yes,it should make for interesting reading.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44410
Re: what new evidence?
« Reply #50 on: March 17, 2014, 03:48:PM »
There has not been much new evidence in the last 30 years. Certainly nothing to quash the conviction, or even get a release on a technicality.

None of the witnesses have retracted a word of their statements or testimonies.

Out of desperation Jeremy claimed there were actually conversations in the house after seeing a police log. It is inconcievable that Jeremy would not have been aware of this on the night. Espesically as half the time he was directing operations outside,  insinuating Sheila. Why tell the police Sheila was experienced with guns when she wasn't ?

Jeremy also claimed years later that Neville called the police.  Again it is inconcievable that the police would not have told him, either on the night or during the month afterwards.

The latest evidence was a picture of a foot. Apparently covered in blood. Although I did not see any. Or any glass or sugar.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2014, 03:49:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline nugnug

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17252
    • http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjohnnyvoid.wordpress.com%2F&ei=WTdUUo3IM6mY0QWYz4GADg&usg=AFQjCNE-8xtZuPAZ52VkntYOokH5da5MIA&bvm=bv.5353710
Re: what new evidence?
« Reply #51 on: March 17, 2014, 03:53:PM »
well theres the fact that most of thses statements have since been proven to be false.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2014, 04:48:PM by nugnug »

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44410
Re: what new evidence?
« Reply #52 on: March 17, 2014, 04:22:PM »
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.

Jeremy is always saying he is sitting on something exciting.

'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44410
Re: what new evidence?
« Reply #53 on: March 17, 2014, 04:26:PM »
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.

Have you got the court transcripts ?
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44410
Re: what new evidence?
« Reply #54 on: March 17, 2014, 04:27:PM »


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.

Having a realistic situation when Neville phoned Jeremy would be a start.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44410
Re: what new evidence?
« Reply #55 on: March 17, 2014, 04:33:PM »
Sheila could have carried out an attempted massacre at any time. Preferably when Jeremy was also around, as they also did not like each other.

A curious coincidence that the time she did was when Jeremy did not have an alibi.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44410
Re: what new evidence?
« Reply #56 on: March 17, 2014, 04:33:PM »
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.  :)

What evidence please ?
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44410
Re: what new evidence?
« Reply #57 on: March 17, 2014, 04:35:PM »
A bloodied hand/palm print tying in the bible and the blue nightdress.

Is that evidence for or against Jeremy ?
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44410
Re: what new evidence?
« Reply #58 on: March 17, 2014, 04:38:PM »



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.

Jeremy has already had a whole appeal dedicated to the supposedly biased judge.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44410
Re: what new evidence?
« Reply #59 on: March 17, 2014, 04:41:PM »
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.

Why would Jeremy need to know who Sheilas doctor was ? The doctor would not disclose any information to Jeremy.

Jeremy knew the basics of Sheilas illness & was aware she was too ill to work.
'Only I know what really happened that night'.