Author Topic: DCI 621 Stuart Smith Specsavers Challenge  (Read 1237 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline justice

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2415
Re: DCI 621 Stuart Smith Specsavers Challenge
« Reply #165 on: July 05, 2017, 07:14:PM »
Release? It's already on the forum.
Ha Ha, no it isn't he's only had a sighting of it?
Envy kills,” the Pope said. “It does not tolerate others having something that I do not have. And it always suffers, because the heart of an envious or jealous person suffers. It is a suffering heart!” It is a suffering that desires “the death of others

Offline Jan

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8913
Re: DCI 621 Stuart Smith Specsavers Challenge
« Reply #166 on: July 05, 2017, 07:17:PM »
A couple of questions , forgive me but I am a bit rusty on the case.

1) if the picture was taken before the swabs could it have been before the pathology report and by that time the hands could have been cleaned ?
2) as far as I know there is no proof that nevilles injuries (apart from shots) were inflicted before or after shooting?
3) purely speculation but Neville was fully aware of Sheila's violent outbursts so possibly his reaction to her hitting him or attacking him , possibly before the shooting, would surely be different to confronting Jeremy with a gun. With his background a fight with Jeremy would surely have been different than trying to calm a mentally ill woman?
4) I still think that looks like a full handprint in blood . But as the pathologist was not at the scene and he was convinced it was murder suicide then perhaps his report was not thorough enough rather than being deliberately misleading?

Offline justice

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2415
Re: DCI 621 Stuart Smith Specsavers Challenge
« Reply #167 on: July 05, 2017, 07:20:PM »
A couple of questions , forgive me but I am a bit rusty on the case.

1) if the picture was taken before the swabs could it have been before the pathology report and by that time the hands could have been cleaned ?
2) as far as I know there is no proof that nevilles injuries (apart from shots) were inflicted before or after shooting?
3) purely speculation but Neville was fully aware of Sheila's violent outbursts so possibly his reaction to her hitting him or attacking him , possibly before the shooting, would surely be different to confronting Jeremy with a gun. With his background a fight with Jeremy would surely have been different than trying to calm a mentally ill woman?
4) I still think that looks like a full handprint in blood . But as the pathologist was not at the scene and he was convinced it was murder suicide then perhaps his report was not thorough enough rather than being deliberately misleading?
How could point four be true?  That's his second report when he was told Bamber was guilty says Roch?
Envy kills,” the Pope said. “It does not tolerate others having something that I do not have. And it always suffers, because the heart of an envious or jealous person suffers. It is a suffering heart!” It is a suffering that desires “the death of others

Offline Adam

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17554
Re: DCI 621 Stuart Smith Specsavers Challenge
« Reply #168 on: July 05, 2017, 07:21:PM »
Release? It's already on the forum.

I thought he said it's been discussed in a round about way on the forum.

Anyway, Roch's never going to say what he saw in March 2017. Just that he saw it.

It obviously blows wide open the industrial frame as it shows 'Sheila definately committed the massacre'.

Myself & Susan just want to clear up whether the 'bombshell' evidence is with Bamber's legal team. And how Roch got to see the 'bombshell' evidence.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2017, 07:31:PM by Adam »
'Only I know what really happened that night'.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 19595
Re: DCI 621 Stuart Smith Specsavers Challenge
« Reply #169 on: July 05, 2017, 07:23:PM »
A couple of questions , forgive me but I am a bit rusty on the case.

1) if the picture was taken before the swabs could it have been before the pathology report and by that time the hands could have been cleaned ? This is what Vanezis has alluded to in CAL's book
2) as far as I know there is no proof that nevilles injuries (apart from shots) were inflicted before or after shooting? True
3) purely speculation but Neville was fully aware of Sheila's violent outbursts so possibly his reaction to her hitting him or attacking him , possibly before the shooting, would surely be different to confronting Jeremy with a gun. With his background a fight with Jeremy would surely have been different than trying to calm a mentally ill woman? I don't think he could have put up much of a fight with either - I think he was bttered rather than fought with anyone. I also think that someone made it look like someone else, had 'gone crazy and just smashed a few things.
4) I still think that looks like a full handprint in blood . But as the pathologist was not at the scene and he was convinced it was murder suicide then perhaps his report was not thorough enough rather than being deliberately misleading? Just looks like finger marks to me.
100% GUILTY - No doubts!

Offline Jan

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8913
Re: DCI 621 Stuart Smith Specsavers Challenge
« Reply #170 on: July 05, 2017, 07:27:PM »


But did not the report quite clearly say palm print . I remember going round on that aregument as well as whether he meant wrist or palm etc?

Offline Jan

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8913
Re: DCI 621 Stuart Smith Specsavers Challenge
« Reply #171 on: July 05, 2017, 07:31:PM »
How could point four be true?  That's his second report when he was told Bamber was guilty says Roch?


Sorry not quite getting your point ? I am not saying anything is true or not ? All I was saying was on the first report he would not have seen the photos and the body and how Sheila's hands would have been positioned so perhaps would not have been aware of any implications of blood on her hands . Or the blood on the nightie.

In court the implication of her hands being clean was used as a tool for her innocence in the crime .

Offline JackieD

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 350
Re: DCI 621 Stuart Smith Specsavers Challenge
« Reply #172 on: July 05, 2017, 09:56:PM »
That's the whole point though. His findings were made to suit, in accordance with the aims of the second investigation.  If you want to find a report that you can't argue with, you need to locate the report he did when Sheila was prime suspect.  Good luck with that.

Of course and we know the score there

Offline Roch

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9676
Re: DCI 621 Stuart Smith Specsavers Challenge
« Reply #173 on: July 05, 2017, 10:56:PM »
Lets agree for a moment that they are some kind of lacerations (although the term is a bit over the top), Looking at the following picture, there are linear marks leading fro what you say are fingernail gouge marks



However, Nevill had similar marks and so IF (and it's a BIG IF) they are inuries, they may be defence wounds and the crescent formed from the rifle barrel.



That doesn't work, imo.   The two marks with the smears / scrapes underneath or above them (depending on how the marks are interpreted) contain differences.. 

Even if both of the marks were crescent-like (as it seems from the video still you have used) - one is bigger than the other. 

Even if the end of the gun barrel or silencer could have penetrated the skin like a sharpened impliment and caused these wounds - I would expect to see more uniformity within both of the marks as a result.

In the images put up yesterday - it is clear to see that one mark is not only smaller than the other but is also not fully joined-up. 

A laceration would not seem to be an 'over the top' turn.  If those marks were on your own hand - and somebody dabbed them with TCP or similar, I would expect to see a wince and a sharp intake of breath


« Last Edit: July 05, 2017, 11:06:PM by Roch »
"She was on a mission - a date with death, in league with the devil..." 

(Mike Tesko 2012)

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 19595
Re: DCI 621 Stuart Smith Specsavers Challenge
« Reply #174 on: July 06, 2017, 12:05:AM »
That doesn't work, imo.   The two marks with the smears / scrapes underneath or above them (depending on how the marks are interpreted) contain differences.. 

Even if both of the marks were crescent-like (as it seems from the video still you have used) - one is bigger than the other. 

Even if the end of the gun barrel or silencer could have penetrated the skin like a sharpened impliment and caused these wounds - I would expect to see more uniformity within both of the marks as a result.

In the images put up yesterday - it is clear to see that one mark is not only smaller than the other but is also not fully joined-up. 

A laceration would not seem to be an 'over the top' turn.  If those marks were on your own hand - and somebody dabbed them with TCP or similar, I would expect to see a wince and a sharp intake of breath

Well neither of us are experts Roch, however, uniformity would only occur if the hit was from the same angle with the same pressure. We're not even sure that they are (OK) 'lacerations'  ::), but it could only ever be a best guess as to what caused them IF, they are. Anyone who knows me knows I an accident prone - TCP is my friend!  ;D ;D ;D ;D
100% GUILTY - No doubts!

Offline Jan

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8913
Re: DCI 621 Stuart Smith Specsavers Challenge
« Reply #175 on: July 07, 2017, 10:02:PM »
But did not the report quite clearly say palm print . I remember going round on that aregument as well as whether he meant wrist or palm etc?


The report said blood on the wrist. But from the picture it looks like at one stage there was blood on the hand including fingers.

I still think the hands had been cleaned and bagged by the time he saw them and he just assumed it was not that important.

Like the whole crime scene assumption and sloppiness.