The recent programme
Key Productions were responsible for last nights programme featuring my case. They too have been stressed I am sure with pressures from various quarters as to whether it went out or not. However, it did and I would like to thank John and Trish for their interest in my case and determination to highlight important aspects of the case. Obviously there are far more indepth areas which were not covered due to the time limit but I remain hopeful that maybe something will come from it, or even a lengthier programme could be done in the future?
posted by Susan
12 Comments:
Maybe that is why John and Trish have had such headaches - having to withdraw the original format etc. and do extra work - because it is known to many that we DO issue press releases on anything relevent. As it was we were still unsure it would go out until the last minute thus preventing us from contacting our usual media outlets?
Let's hope it can be repeated at a future date and then we can do a press release!
To many people who didn't (or in my case couldn't, as I live in Portsmouth) see the programme, it appears to me that the more the powers that be try to dam up the truth, the less credible they become in the eyes of more than Susan's supporters.
From John and Trish O'Hara,Producer's of the recent programme which featured Susan's case.
Firstly, We need to thank Susan for allowing us to share her experience, the interview must have been traumatic for her.
Please be aware that we have fought hard to get the progamme transmitted, having the programme pulled initially because we had made the programme too much in Susan's favour, we are not allowed to do this as programme makers, we are not allowed to express an opinion, and the first delivered programme appeared in Susan's favour.
We would like it to go on record, that personally, after a short time in knowing Susan, we are one hundred percent sure that she is innocent.
The programme should be repeated as usual on ITV1, in which case we would be able to let the press know in advance, which would have been the case with the first programme if it had not been pulled for legal issues,and it may also go on to be shown on network, then worldwide.
However, we are now in talks with other broadcasters to show a one hour long documentary on Susan's case, and will continue to support Susan in which ever way we can.
With regards to the comments from Jane of a hollow laugh inserted, this would have assured that the programme would not have been broadcast.
Really sorry I never saw this, is there any chance of it being broadcast up here in Scotland at any point? Very interested in the hour long documentary about the case too, I'm sure they will be able to fit in a lot more of the "discrepancies" of the case into this.
Hope you're keeping well Susan.
Can I ask a question to John & Trish? I hope this isn't inappropriate of me
Did you play a part in creating the reconstruction footage of the "bloody handprint" on the wall? The handprint depicted in the program was visibly dripping with what appeared to be fresh blood but of course this imagery hugely contradicts what was actually being said by Susan in the interview when she explained that the mark was barely visible and had to be chemically enhanced before it could be seen with the naked eye.
What are you thoughts on this please?
To Chris McGrory...from what I gather there is a possibility the programme could go out again to other areas, so obviously if that were to happen I would post a message to enable you to catch it. Thank you for asking, I am okayish...but as you may imagine,very anxious to hear news of a further appeal.
Yonner, I am sure John and Trish will answer. My thoughts on your question are these. The narrative began by telling it as the police had...'a bloody handprint', but of course that was not the case. All who saw the stains documented them as 'faint' It was a print in a substance which, when chemically enhanced, changed colour, in fact the first chemical enhancement turned them blue, the second turned them purple and the third dark brown and it was the photo' of the latter chemical residue on the stain that was shown to the jury!! as 'a hand print in blood'! Totally misrepresenting their true original appearance. So, maybe the visual inference was merely because it was television?? I think I am right in saying that as it went on to explain that the Paisley forensic students had become involved, it briefly showed a more 'invisable' hand print on a wall? Good to debate such an important aspect of the case tho'- thank you.
That's a fair response I think but with the "blood on the wall" issue being such a crucial aspect of the case it just irked me to see it being portrayed in this slightly sensationalist way that was contradicting your own words during the interview.
Perhaps more accurate visuals could be inserted for any subsequent showings? Or best to keep quiet seeing as how difficult it was to get THIS version broadcast.
DISCLAIMER:
I only caught the last 10 minutes of the program so admittedly, I don't have the full context of the program in my head.
NIGEL & CHRIS
If someone can get this to me on VHS or any other medium I can very easily get the whole episode added to Sue's website for anyone to come and see.
To Yonner:
Getting it onto Susan's Website's a good idea, but I'd be concerned about issues of copyright, intellectual property, etc.
To Yonner:
Getting it onto Susan's Website's a good idea, but I'd be concerned about issues of copyright, intellectual property, etc.
It certainly would be great if permission could be obtained to put the program on the website, but as Nigel said, this is likely to run into huge legal problems. Is there any possibility of there being at least a transcript being made available?
By the way, Susan, if you don't mind my asking, what exactly is the situation concerning a possible future appeal of your case?
My case has now been back with the CCRC for 4 years, so I await their decision in anticipation. Obviously as they sent my case back to Court of Appeal last time - and may I add their findings were powerful, so I definately should have had my conviction quashed then - it has been difficult for them it being a second time around. BUT there is evidence still there that has not been put before a Court before so I am hopeful they find the courage to refer me again. They are supposedly an Independent body but I do feel they get concerned as to how the Court of Appeal will react? I would like to see the Court of Appeal look again at the WHOLE of the evidence but sadly the rules surrounding appeals are very limiting and evidence available before yet not used is often rejected by the Judges!
Post a Comment
<< Home