Author Topic: Reason to believe cops shot Sheila, and how her blood ended up inside Silencer!  (Read 78615 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33773
That could relate to grounds restrictions and CCRC processes? Perhaps the system is set up to constrict over time, with regard to what can be classed as a 'new ground' . I'm not sure. But people are really not getting what I am saying.  There would have been no trial and no jury to reach a verdict, if this evidence had been disclosed at the outset of Jeremy being charged.

I refer you back to Caroline's last post.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
That could relate to grounds restrictions and CCRC processes? Perhaps the system is set up to constrict over time, with regard to what can be classed as a 'new ground' . I'm not sure. But people are really not getting what I am saying.  There would have been no trial and no jury to reach a verdict, if this evidence had been disclosed at the outset of Jeremy being charged.

You're talking about non-disclosure again? If what you are talking about hasn't been disclosed, how are you or those who told you - party to it?
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Depends upon what took place in the farmhouse and how true EP's official line was at the outset.

There's that 'something' again :). Without a motive this whole theory just falls flat. If this 'something' was big enough to make a chief constable put his career on the line and silence the whole of EP for 30 years, I doubt it would have been allowed to form part of gossip loose enough to land in the lap of RWB.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17579
You're talking about non-disclosure again? If what you are talking about hasn't been disclosed, how are you or those who told you - party to it?

Tricky one that. Part of it has been disclosed in some form from the outset.  Part of it hasn't until recent years. Some of it disclosed in between. Tricky.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Tricky one that. Part of it has been disclosed in some form from the outset.  Part of it hasn't until recent years. Some of it disclosed in between. Tricky.

A jigsaw?
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17579
A jigsaw?

Ha ha.  I understand that for many of you (on the dark-side) my posts must be bloody frustrating!  For those like me, who wield the sword of justice like a shining light however...  :))

Offline notsure

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1684
A jigsaw?

I love jigsaws but I'm lost on this one. What evidence is roch referring to. Non disclosure for me is the biggest thing in this case, I don't think we have seen nearly enough,

Offline gringo

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
What logs are you talking about?  It's in statements about one dead female in the kitchen which was accepted as being Neville, I think the idea that the police shot Sheila twice with two different rifles once in the kitchen and once upstairs is more silly and preposterous don't you?
    The message and radio logs which were withheld from the defence at the initial trial and both appeals. Do you dispute this?
    I would have thought that it was easily inferred which logs I was referring to from the following,
   "First of all the logs ,which mention two bodies downstairs, one male one female etc. were withheld for many years until after the second appeal, I believe"
    There are a few clues here to enable you to discern which logs I am referring to.
    1) The ones that refer to finding two bodies upon entry( one male and one female)
    2) The ones that were withheld for years.
    3) The ones that came to light only after the second appeal.
   
     This is why your claim that it would have been easier to move Sheila's dead body downstairs to the kitchen is ludicrous. It also ignores the fact that EP did withhold/conceal logs which refer to this.
 

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
I love jigsaws but I'm lost on this one. What evidence is roch referring to. Non disclosure for me is the biggest thing in this case, I don't think we have seen nearly enough,

Hello Notsure I understand the evidence Roch is referring to is material that has convinced him Sheila was the killer this evidence I think has been shown to him in confidence and he is not able to share with us.  I have known Roch on this forum for many years to know he would not try and deceive us :)

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
Ha ha.  I understand that for many of you (on the dark-side) my posts must be bloody frustrating!  For those like me, who wield the sword of justice like a shining light however...  :))

Hi Roch you sound elated and that must be a wonderful feeling to have knowing in your heart of hearts you are not wrong in your belief Sheila was the killer.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Cops aren't corrupt according to some people, the cops don't falsify evidence, they don't try to cover things up, no not the cops, try telling that to all the acclaimed miscarriages of justice and the victims of these tactics over the years - the stark truth is that cops do tamper with the evidence, and they do cover things up! They don't always need a motive to do these things, they do these things because they can!
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44310
Hello Notsure I understand the evidence Roch is referring to is material that has convinced him Sheila was the killer this evidence I think has been shown to him in confidence and he is not able to share with us.  I have known Roch on this forum for many years to know he would not try and deceive us :)

You should know better than this.

Sources are required from both guilters & supporters. Espescially when making massive claims such as in post 479.

You've asked me for sources enough times. Often more than once for the same things.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2017, 02:12:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline susan

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 16196
You should know better than this.

Sources are required from both guilters & supporters. Espescially when making massive claims such as in post 479.

You've asked me for sources enough times. Often for the same thing more than once.

Adam stop being so cross with me you know I try my best and I know I cannot never post with the knowledge and confidence you do.   :'(

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 44310
Anyway Roch said yesterday regarding his post 479 "why would I be privy to such information". 

So obviously isn't witholding his sources , but just posting what he would like the situation to be.
 
« Last Edit: May 03, 2017, 02:15:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Roch

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17579
Anyway Roch said yesterday regarding his post 479 "why would I be privy to such information". 

So obviously isn't witholding his sources , but just posting what he would like the situation to be.

Two different situations - albeit linked together by me in my posts.   I may have a Simpson Boutflour theory for you.  I might post it up later on.