Blood on Sheila's neck:

[Adam]

Jeremy and supporters have claimed the blood on Sheila's neck shows she could not have been shot before 3am.

It is true the blood looks bright red and wet. But then again blood is bright red and wet.

The blood may have just dried glossy. Or the lighting and the way the picture was taken may have exaggerated the redness and brightness of the blood. Or images may have been airbrushed to highlight the redness and glossiness.
 
Officers observed that wet blood had pooled in the crook of Sheila’s right arm. Congealed blood had also formed in the aperture of the lower neck wound. One possibility is that when Sheila was moved by officers at the scene, this plug became detached, and allowed blood accumulated within Sheila’s neck, viscous but not yet congealed, to run thickly beyond the entrance of the wound.

Supporters claim the blood shows Sheila shot herself while everyone was outside or entering WHF. There is a thread asking why she would delay shooting herself for so long. Apart from helping Jeremy contest a future prosecution.

Do other people believe the blood on Sheila's neck does not show she killed herself ?

[Jane]

Jeremy and supporters have claimed the blood on Sheila's neck shows she could not have been shot before 3am.

It is true the blood looks bright red and wet. But then again blood is bright red and wet.

The blood may have just dried glossy. Or the lighting and the way the picture was taken may have exaggerated the redness and brightness of the blood.
 
Officers observed that wet blood had pooled in the crook of Sheila’s right arm. Congealed blood had also formed in the aperture of the lower neck wound. One possibility is that when Sheila was moved by officers at the scene, this plug became detached, and allowed blood accumulated within Sheila’s neck, viscous but not yet congealed, to run thickly beyond the entrance of the wound.

Do other people believe the blood on Sheila's neck does not show she killed herself ?

To make any grammatical sense, your question SHOULD read as follows "Do other people believe the blood on Sheila's neck shows she didn't kill herself?" However it makes no logical sense which ever way it's written. How is the hole in YOUR neck -made by me- going to bleed any differently from the hole, made in the same position in your neck, by YOU? It also occurs to me to ask of which "other" people you speak in this particular context. "Other" infers you have given your own or someone else's opinion. You have done neither.

[lookout]

I'm more interested in the bloodied fingerprints on hers and June's neck. Whose were they ?

[Adam]

I'm more interested in the bloodied fingerprints on hers and June's neck. Whose were they ?

Bloodied fingerprints on her and June's neck ? Yes good question, whose were they ?

[scipio_usmc]

I'm more interested in the bloodied fingerprints on hers and June's neck. Whose were they ?

No bloody fingerprints were found by neither anyone who saw her body (including DR Craig) nor the person who autopsied her.

[scipio_usmc]

Jeremy and supporters have claimed the blood on Sheila's neck shows she could not have been shot before 3am.

It is true the blood looks bright red and wet. But then again blood is bright red and wet.

The blood may have just dried glossy. Or the lighting and the way the picture was taken may have exaggerated the redness and brightness of the blood.
 
Officers observed that wet blood had pooled in the crook of Sheila’s right arm. Congealed blood had also formed in the aperture of the lower neck wound. One possibility is that when Sheila was moved by officers at the scene, this plug became detached, and allowed blood accumulated within Sheila’s neck, viscous but not yet congealed, to run thickly beyond the entrance of the wound.

Do other people believe the blood on Sheila's neck does not show she killed herself ?

Most people face that the blood doesn't look wet in the original photos and that Dr Craig as well as police say the blood was dry.

There are only a handful of stalwarts who ignore such and insist it was wet. It seems pointless to have this debate again since those few stalwarts are never going to face reality and most Jeremy supporters have moved on from this issue. 

[Adam]

I thought it was a key part in Jeremy's campaign for freedom. Showing that Sheila was alive hours after 3am.

If supporters have given up on this, then they have to rely on even more desperate proof. The alleged movement in the window, the alleged two bodies in the kitchen, and the alleged conversations inside WHF.

[notsure]

I thought it was a key part in Jeremy's campaign for freedom. Showing that Sheila was alive hours after 3am.

If supporters have given up on this, then they have to rely on even more desperate proof. The alleged movement in the window, the alleged two bodies in the kitchen, and the alleged conversations inside WHF.
[/quot
e

Well they arent reallyvalleged are they. They are written in police statements and pocketbooks arent they. . Its down to anyones interpretation of what tbey meant and the prosecution were very good at explaining away what the police really meant.

Ie in conversation with someone inside the house didnt really mean that they were actually in co versatikn with someone in the house but they were trying to make contact with someone in the house. Why didnt they just say that. They made some awful errors didnt they

[notsure]

Im still doing it wrong. Will get the hang of this my reply to adams post is in white above sorry

[scipio_usmc]

Well they arent reallyvalleged are they. They are written in police statements and pocketbooks arent they. . Its down to anyones interpretation of what tbey meant and the prosecution were very good at explaining away what the police really meant.

Ie in conversation with someone inside the house didnt really mean that they were actually in co versatikn with someone in the house but they were trying to make contact with someone in the house. Why didnt they just say that. They made some awful errors didnt they

You have to look at who the "they" is.  The "they" who wrote police were in conversation with the house  was someone not on scene.  The sloppy writer was the person at police HQ keeping the log. The person keeping this log was told they were using a loud hailer to send commands to those inside which the person wrote as them communicating with those in the house.  The log doesn't make the claim that anyone responded back.  In fact the person keeping this log write subsequently that no one inside responded. So it wasn't as if the wording was that bad and the person made a mistake.  Unscrupulous Jeremy supporters ignored the portion that said no one responded back and make the false claim this suggest someone was speaking to them. 

The people at the scene say no one spoke to them and subsequent to this the dispatcher relayed to higher ups no contact had been made with those in the house so that when the second firearms team was briefed they were told no contact had been made with anyone in the house.  Such briefing was made prior to them setting out for WHF.

The trial defense didn't try any of these lies because they knew they had no ability to establish such lies in court and the appellate lawyers can't either these lies are just used to try to fool the public.  They only discuss the underlined portion they don't bother to mention the next sentence that says no response was received:



Obviously if the person keeping the log had said the officers spoke to those in the house but received no response instead of saying they were in conversation with those in the house but received no response then there would have been no way for the deceitful to even try to use this but in any event we clearly know what the person keeping the log meant and know that all the officers sent subsequently were told by such dispatcher that no one inside the house ever communicated with officers.  More importantly the people at the scene say no one inside the house communicated with them.  That is what matters in court you get live testimony from witnesses.   

All the conspiracy crap like this falls apart under scrutiny.

[lookout]

" Met with no response "--------so why did it take 2 hours to go inside the farmhouse when they knew that all were dead ? Excuse was------------they were waiting for dawn to break.Why ?

[lookout]

They were outside all that time talking to themselves ? Doesn't it stand to reason that once the dog stopped barking that nobody was alive ?

[mike tesko]

First police officers arrived at the scene at 3.48am, depending upon which clock was keeping time, and entry into the farmhouse took place at around 7.30am, so something inside the farmhouse kept the police at bay for a total of 3 hours and 42 minutes. If they didn't see anybody, or hear anybody, then there would be no reason at all for the police not to approach the farmhouse sooner than 7.30am. Police knew there was someone still alive inside the farmhouse long after the first arrival there of the occupants of CA07 at 3.48am, otherwise ambulances would have been summoned to the scene sooner than 6.30am. It funny how there is no record made of any messages passed from the scene, for why the need for ambulances at 6.30am? Somebody must have had a conversation with somebody about the need for two ambulances to urgently attend the scene, one ambulance to go directly to the house, and the other to be parked up in Pages Lane. It is something of a mystery why the reason for the two ambulances and their crews being summoned to the scene was made, or who made the request, or why? The most obvious reason why they were summoned to the scene in the circumstances they were because shots had been heard to have been fired in the kitchen via the telephone handset eavesdrop being managed by the operator who patched a direct link to the control room....

[scipio_usmc]

" Met with no response "--------so why did it take 2 hours to go inside the farmhouse when they knew that all were dead ? Excuse was------------they were waiting for dawn to break.Why ?

They didn't know for sure anyone was dead.  Sheila could have been keeping them hostage or they could have been killed and yet Sheila could still have been inside there armed. They waited until they had enough police to go inside and yet still have enough outside to form a perimeter so that when they went in Sheila could not simply run away out another door or a window with the weapon and potentially threaten other people.

[Adam]

Waiting for dawn to break is a good idea.

There will be some natural light inside WHF. Better to have good vision. Sheila had turned into Clint Eastwood.