Sheila's hands

[grahameb]

I carry out statement analysis and the pathologists statement on Ralphs arm shouts to me in the strongest of terms  that he knew full well what the real cause of the injuries were and that while not telling lies he was so economical with the truth that anyone listening or reading would be highly  likely to be misled. There was out and out deception  in my view on this issue because the truth of the injuries would support the claims JB made about the phone call from Ralph in which Sheila had gone crazy.
It would also place a female as being involved at the critical time.

What does "I carry out statement analysis" mean?

How do you draw these conclusions from the page you posted?

I think he means that the statement is quite vague and lends itself to all manner of interpretation? And that the injuries could well have been made by SC as the statement is not precise on the amount of force used to inflict them? For this would depend on many factors such as the persons skin and how easily they bruise etc?

[bob]

I carry out statement analysis and the pathologists statement on Ralphs arm shouts to me in the strongest of terms  that he knew full well what the real cause of the injuries were and that while not telling lies he was so economical with the truth that anyone listening or reading would be highly  likely to be misled. There was out and out deception  in my view on this issue because the truth of the injuries would support the claims JB made about the phone call from Ralph in which Sheila had gone crazy.
It would also place a female as being involved at the critical time.

What does "I carry out statement analysis" mean?

How do you draw these conclusions from the page you posted?

I think he means that the statement is quite vague and lends itself to all manner of interpretation? And that the injuries could well have been made by SC as the statement is not precise on the amount of force used to inflict them? For this would depend on many factors such as the persons skin and how easily they bruise etc?

It reads to me like a scientist being honest about forensic limitations. If it isn't possible to draw accurate conclusions from the evidence then there is bound to be vagueness in the statement. Much rather that than a dishonest "expert" drawing absolute conclusions when the evidence doesn't warrant it.

[grahameb]

I carry out statement analysis and the pathologists statement on Ralphs arm shouts to me in the strongest of terms  that he knew full well what the real cause of the injuries were and that while not telling lies he was so economical with the truth that anyone listening or reading would be highly  likely to be misled. There was out and out deception  in my view on this issue because the truth of the injuries would support the claims JB made about the phone call from Ralph in which Sheila had gone crazy.
It would also place a female as being involved at the critical time.

What does "I carry out statement analysis" mean?

How do you draw these conclusions from the page you posted?

I think he means that the statement is quite vague and lends itself to all manner of interpretation? And that the injuries could well have been made by SC as the statement is not precise on the amount of force used to inflict them? For this would depend on many factors such as the persons skin and how easily they bruise etc?

It reads to me like a scientist being honest about forensic limitations. If it isn't possible to draw accurate conclusions from the evidence then there is bound to be vagueness in the statement. Much rather that than a dishonest "expert" drawing absolute conclusions when the evidence doesn't warrant it.

Exactly. That is why it is open to different interpretations.

[simong]

simong posted..about myself;

The fact that this guy who seems a nutter has got +29 on posting worries the hell out of me. Who will admit to giving them that?

Well I am no nutter...in fact I am a very responsible person and single parent father...you know parental responsibility awarded by court etc...
no criminal convictions..or points on driving licence I have held for over 30 years etc.
no mental health problems etc.

now  you seem to have jumped to a "viewpoint"   (seems a nutter) simong that has no substance very very easily....that could imply that you are a bad judge of character..or could be that you just choose to be hostile to someone who airs a viewpoint you oppose but rather than you challenge with reason ...you elect to namecall or smear by implication.

why should I worry the hell out of you?  ...thats interesting...I like that.
I am capable simong....very capable..

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
back to sheila's hands

in the crime scene pictures the index finger of Sheila's left hand is differently positioned from the rest of her fingers on that hand...does anyone feel this is significant...?

could her left index finger have been strained in some way ...making it ..when dead appear more relaxed or something than her other fingers.
tendons weakend by injury in the distant past or recent past...could these have a bearing on this?
There is mention of a previous incident a while before the events of THAT NIGHT when she punched/struck glass and broke the glass with her hand/hands.

Billy, You don't worry me, please read what i have posted. I couldn't care less about how capable you are. With the sane posters you have no credibility.

[smiffy]

The pathologist did not speak of the lacerations that were inextricably linked to the second set of 4 bruises. By doing this deliberately a person listening could be lead into believing the claim that an object had been used was correct when it was not which was the intention of the person making the statement.
By keeping back key information the deception is carried out.
Options kept open...ok yes can agree with  that...
however the options and truth would be far clearer if the relevant information about the wounds was given ... the linked  lacerations...
These would have totally undermined the contended claims of being struck by an object that the pathogist contended into the realm of fantasy .

He knew from experience they were fingernail  marks and grip marks  yet misses out the identifying features that were present to avoid the truth.


HOW WAS THE PATHOLOGIST BEING HONEST?
he did not want to commit ..... by denying the presence of the lacerations the listener is kept from forming the correct viewpoint .
The pathologist offered a possible cause for only what he spoke of in the statement so was leading the listener to form a view. If he had not named a possible cause then and only then can the view be formed that he was not trying to persuade someone with dishonesty. He did name a cause that he could not have made had he spoke of the lacerations.

he spoke of a possible cause not for what he observed but for what he spoke of in regards to Ralph's arm. A cause that he could not claim had he spoke of all the RELEVANT injuries to Ralph's arm.


the truth , the "whole" truth and "nothing but the truth"...In my view the patholgist failed.

[smiffy]

I shall now inform folks here that "simong" is also "john" aka "sandy"

The usual multi user name tactics of the dishonest John Braes Lamberton.

[simong]

 

Billy, Can you let my brother Paulg know that i am really called John. 

[chochokeira]

I shall now inform folks here that "simong" is also "john" aka "sandy"

The usual multi user name tactics of the dishonest John Braes Lamberton.

That's not so, smiffy, simong is simply simong, paulg's brother. He is not John P.

[nugnug]

who cares who anybody is.

[simong]

Smiffy obviously does. 

[chochokeira]

Smiffy obviously does. 

simong, how did you put the message to Hartley below the message line?

[simong]

go to profile, modify profile and then put whatever you want in the signature section.

[sandy]

I shall now inform folks here that "simong" is also "john" aka "sandy"

The usual multi user name tactics of the dishonest John Braes Lamberton.

Is this smiffy nutter for real?   I did read a bit this morning which has been posted about him and identifying him as Billy Middleton, a scam merchant apparently who runs the discredited wrongly accused website and forum from somewhere in the Shetland Islands. 

http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/

It seems that this Middleton originally came to the attention of the authorities following the death of his daughter in a house fire for which his immediate family hold him responsible. It appears that there was insufficient evidence to convict this felon and he was released on a not proven verdict.  I also understand his wife is pursuing him in a civil action.

I have also read the link to a site which goes into some detail of Middleton's past when he operated a pyramid selling scam apparently and defrauded many investors.  I post the link for anyone who is interested in the real smiffy/nugnug.

http://simplybillymiddleton.myfreeforum.org/forum1.php


And before I finish I must mention that he apparently was extremely abusive to Mrs Stephanie Hall which resulted in her husband Simon demanding that Middleton remove all reference to his case from his website.  As someone posted yesterday, what a nice guy!

Thank you to the member who filled me in on this character, apparently abuse is his middle name.

[John]

Smiffy, you seem to be quite knowledgable of this case, and a lot of the posters as well.
Can I ask why it took you so long to join this forum.
I am only curious, so you need not answer, thanks.

I believe I can answer that question Cliff, he only joined after someone posted a link to this site on another forum.  He and his side kick Sandra Lean are my personal trolls and follow me everywhere.  If I had not joined he would not have joined.  He (Billy Middleton) is well aware of the Bamber case but he couldn't resist causing some additional nuisance on another forum.

According to his niece Stephanie Marie Adamson he is a child murdered so I think he feels some affinity with Jeremy.  Birds of a feather do flock together!   

Sorry to diverse but I just had to put the record straight just in case someone got the misplaced idea that the guy was genuine.

[sandy]

Smiffy, you seem to be quite knowledgable of this case, and a lot of the posters as well.
Can I ask why it took you so long to join this forum.
I am only curious, so you need not answer, thanks.

I believe I can answer that question Cliff, he only joined after someone posted a link to this site on another forum.  He and his side kick Sandra Lean are my personal trolls and follow me everywhere.  If I had not joined he would not have joined.  He (Billy Middleton) is well aware of the Bamber case but he couldn't resist causing some additional nuisance on another forum.

According to his niece Stephanie Marie Adamson he is a child murdered so I think he feels some affinity with Jeremy.  Birds of a feather do flock together!   

Sorry to diverse but I just had to put the record straight just in case someone got the misplaced idea that the guy was genuine.

Thanks for the links, they are most revealing.