Dr. Ian Donaldson Craig 12-11-86

[mike tesko]

The other thing...

None of the crime scne photographs show the rifle in a position against Sheila's neck, which could obscure a view of the two rather huge bullet entry holes on her neck? According to the evidence, no crime scene photo's were taken until after Dr Craig left the scene?

[curiousessex]

What do you mean about the date being in dispute?

The date of Dr Ian Donaldson Craig's statement as found by following the link you provided details a date of 7th August 1985. The same day as the shootings.

Given the Dr specifically mentions in this statement a quantity of dried blood from Sheila's mouth I would have thought the Dr would know the difference between dried blood and flowing blood. As such it would appear Sheila had been deceased for long enough to have a quantity of dried blood apparent. This would be consistent with Sheila having been dead for sometime and prior to 8.44 am.

[Roch]

The date of Dr Ian Donaldson Craig's statement as found by following the link you provided details a date of 7th August 1985. The same day as the shootings.

Given the Dr specifically mentions in this statement a quantity of dried blood from Sheila's mouth I would have thought the Dr would know the difference between dried blood and flowing blood. As such it would appear Sheila had been deceased for long enough to have a quantity of dried blood apparent. This would be consistent with Sheila having been dead for sometime and prior to 8.44 am.

It might also be consistent with him not mentioning the wet blood from the upper wound and the thin pools of blood which appear similar to fingermarks on the part of her neck outside of the line of flash.  There are different types of blood on Sheila.  (Difference in viscosity).

[mike tesko]

The date of Dr Ian Donaldson Craig's statement as found by following the link you provided details a date of 7th August 1985. The same day as the shootings.

Given the Dr specifically mentions in this statement a quantity of dried blood from Sheila's mouth I would have thought the Dr would know the difference between dried blood and flowing blood. As such it would appear Sheila had been deceased for long enough to have a quantity of dried blood apparent. This would be consistent with Sheila having been dead for sometime and prior to 8.44 am.

An Italian Pathologist studied the photograph taken after 10am by PC Bird, which shows wet looking blood running and pouring from the wound on her neck, and based on his findings the blood in question could not have been visibly dry on Sheila's neck at 8:44am, if PC Bird did'nt take the relevant photo' until after 10am...

Somebody ain't telling the truth, and if PC Bird did not start taking photo's until after 10am, I know who I'd be putting my money on, for lying about blood on Sheila's neck being dried at 8:44am?

[curiousessex]

An Italian Pathologist studied the photograph taken after 10am by PC Bird, which shows wet looking bkood running and pouring from the wound on her neck, and based on his findings the blood in question could not have been vibly dry on Sheika's neck at 8:44am, if PC Bird did'nt take the relevant photo' until after 10am...

Somebody ain't telling the truth, and if PC Bird did not start taking photo's until after 10am, I know who I'd be putting my money on, for lying about blood on Sheila's neck being dried at 8:44am?

Mike

Are you implying or suggesting the blood from the entry wound in the neck appears after the dried blood from the mouth has been witnessed by the Dr. According to the pictures on the forum the dried blood from Sheila's mouth had trickled either side of her mouth whilst on one side also collecting in her eye socket before trickling out of the side of her eye socket?

[Roch]

The other thing, Dr Craig told Ewen That Sheila's body was on the bed when he pronounced her as being dead - contact Ewen Smith and ask him yourself if you don't believe me...

Sounds like a job for Mat.

[-Harters-]

The date of Dr Ian Donaldson Craig's statement as found by following the link you provided details a date of 7th August 1985. The same day as the shootings.

Yes that's right, his statement is taken on 07/08/1985. I'm not sure I'm following you here. 

Given the Dr specifically mentions in this statement a quantity of dried blood from Sheila's mouth I would have thought the Dr would know the difference between dried blood and flowing blood. As such it would appear Sheila had been deceased for long enough to have a quantity of dried blood apparent. This would be consistent with Sheila having been dead for sometime and prior to 8.44 am.

Yes I agree, I don't believe the claims that her blood later becomes wet.

There is a reference to an officer describing her blood as running from her mouth, but I take that as a visual description rather than an assessment of the blood being wet or dry. I forget where that reference is now but I can dig it out if it becomes of further interest.

The photograph which appears to show wet blood, is actually a manipulated image and is a blown up, colour enhanced area of another photograph available at the original trial, i.e. I believe the wet appearance is due to the image being manipulated and recoloured rather than the blood actually being wet at the time of the photograph being taken.

Of course there was undoubtedly liquid blood retained in Sheilas mouth which could have spilled out if moved.

[-Harters-]

It might also be consistent with him not mentioning the wet blood from the upper wound and the thin pools of blood which appear similar to fingermarks on the part of her neck outside of the line of flash.  There are different types of blood on Sheila.  (Difference in viscosity).

That's an interesting point actually, the lower wound which lacerated her jugular could have continued to bleed for a longer period of time and continued to bleed after her arm was moved by the the police.

[Roch]

Yes that's right, his statement is taken on 07/08/1985. I'm not sure I'm following you here. 

Yes I agree, I don't believe the claims that her blood later becomes wet.

There is a reference to an officer describing her blood as running from her mouth, but I take that as a visual description rather than an assessment of the blood being wet or dry. I forget where that reference is now but I can dig it out if it becomes of further interest.

The photograph which appears to show wet blood, is actually a manipulated image and is a blown up, colour enhanced area of another photograph available at the original trial, i.e. I believe the wet appearance is due to the image being manipulated and recoloured rather than the blood actually being wet at the time of the photograph being taken.

Of course there was undoubtedly liquid blood retained in Sheilas mouth which could have spilled out if moved.

I think you are referring to Woodcock's statement.  I am unsure as to how it would be possible to enhance thin pools of wet blood to appear upon Sheila's throat.  I'd be interested to know who manipulated the image and when?  Who is in on this manipulation? 

For clarity, I'd appreciate it if Mike could list his latest theory on what took place and when, the circs of the alleged mishandling of the rifle.  This would be helpful for me personally.

[-Harters-]

I think you are referring to Woodcock's statement.  I am unsure as to how it would be possible to enhance thin pools of wet blood to appear upon Sheila's throat.  I'd be interested to know who manipulated the image and when?  Who is in on this manipulation? 

For clarity, I'd appreciate it if Mike could list his latest theory on what took place and when, the circs of the alleged mishandling of the rifle.  This would be helpful for me personally.

Yes that's it.

Oh no, your memory isn't in as good a nick as we thought.  Do you not recall your conversations with Bridget and I on this very subject? Where we (or rather Bridget) posted a side by side image showing you where it was from?

Trying to keep the number of images repeated to a minimum, but........

This photograph doesn't show wet blood right? : http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4315;image

It's being claimed that this photograph does show wet blood right? : http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=18724;image

But in actual fact, they are the same image, the latter having been enhanced for publication in a newspaper :





Yes that would be good, it does seem to change depending on what he's challenged with.

[mike tesko]

I disagree with the above suggestions - it is much more likely that some sort of dehenhancement took place, so that in the images produced by the police were designed to make some of the blood look more coagulated than it really was/is...

Police have the facilities to be able to transform images to favour thier own case...

At the end of the day, Essex police had control of 581 photographic negatives and as far as I am aware, 179 of these have gine missing. So, rather than some people saying that the defence or its supporters have enhanced images to create a false picture, not to be forgotten is that Essex police have the negatives, so if the blood is not wet simply produce the corresponding negative and let experts from both sides hammer the truth out? Police won't do that because they know Sheila did'nt die in the bedroom until after the police surgeon pronounced her dead at 8:44am...

[-Harters-]

I disagree with the above suggestions - it is much more likely that some sort of dehenhancement took place, so that in the images produced by the police were designed to make some of the blood look more coagulated than it really was/is...

Police have the facilities to be able to transform images to favour thier own case...

At the end of the day, Essex police had control of 581 photographic negatives and as far as I am aware, 179 of these have gine missing. So, rather than some people saying that the defence or its supporters have enhanced images to create a false picture, not to be forgotten is that Essex police have the negatives, so if the blood is not wet simply produce the corresponding negative and let experts from both sides hammer the truth out? Police won't do that because they know Sheila did'nt die in the bedroom until after the police surgeon pronounced her dead at 8:44am...

I think the defence has them actually, I'm not entirely sure of the details, maybe NGB would be able to comment?

[mike tesko]

I think the defence has them actually, I'm not entirely sure of the details, maybe NGB would be able to comment?

I don't think they have ever had access to any of the missing 179 or so photographic negatives...

[Roch]

Oh no, your memory isn't in as good a nick as we thought.  Do you not recall your conversations with Bridget and I on this very subject? Where we (or rather Bridget) posted a side by side image showing you where it was from?

Trying to keep the number of images repeated to a minimum, but........

This photograph doesn't show wet blood right? : http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4315;image

It's being claimed that this photograph does show wet blood right? : http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=18724;image

But in actual fact, they are the same image, the latter having been enhanced for publication in a newspaper :

I did have that Bridget conversation in mind.  I'm not totally convinced that we are not seeing photos taken at different times from of the same position / angle.  I'm struggling to understand how a defence team could pursuade a newspaper, to enhance a majorly sensitive crime scene photograph, to aid a convicted multiple murderer.  In my mind that would imply a  'reverse conspiracy'.  Something which I find far less likely than an original 'prosecution conspiracy'.  Nor why a newspaper would enhance such a photograph off its' own back.   This is after all, after a failed appeal which resulted in Judges issueing a comment to the effect that the more they looked at it, the more they felt Bamber was guilty. There is no impetus to stir up trouble, such as would result from the enhancement of a crime scene photo.

However, I am concerned that only one wet blood image is in the public domain.  Not because I wish to see sensitive crime scene photographs of Sheila in the public domain... but why does only one photograph appear to exist?  I do also see what you're saying.  The poor image appears to be exactly the same angle as the vivid image.  Also, on the blown up image, we cannot see the blood streams which have exited from the mouth, to compare.

[-Harters-]

I did have that Bridget conversation in mind.  I'm not totally convinced that we are not seeing photos taken at different times from of the same position / angle.  I'm struggling to understand how a defence team could pursuade a newspaper, to enhance a majorly sensitive crime scene photograph, to aid a convicted multiple murderer.  In my mind that would imply a  'reverse conspiracy'.  Something which I find far less likely than an original 'prosecution conspiracy'.  Nor why a newspaper would enhance such a photograph off its' own back.   This is after all, after a failed appeal which resulted in Judges issueing a comment to the effec that the more they looked at it, the more they felt Bamber was guilty. There is no impetus to stir up trouble, such as would result from the enhancement of a crime scene photo.

However, I am concerned that only one wet blood image is in the public domain.  Not because I wish to see sensitive crime scene photographs of Sheila in the public domain... but why does only one photograph appear to exist?  I do also see what you're saying.  The poor image appears to be exactly the same angle as the vivid image.  Also, on the blown up image, we cannot see the blood streams which have exited from the mouth, to compare.

I take your points.

I think something which really needs to happen, is for a photographic expert, such as Sutherst, to come out and say a photograph, any photograph, shows Sheilas blood to be wet, then the implications of wet blood would need to be examined.

Unless I'm mistaken, to date, the suggestion that the photographs show wet blood has only come from lay people.

Another thing which is more concerning to me, is that this 'wet blood' theory has never been used in a submission to the CCRC, when lesser theories have been included.