The Boss

[Caroline]

In addition, Sheila has wounds upon the length of her right arm - i.e. from upper arm to wrist; and upon her right hand.  An angled wound upon her finger matches the shape of a machined part on the Anschutz.  Some of her wounds are visible in post-mortem photographs.  These are not the only fight wounds upon her body either.  Of these other wounds, at least one other can be seen in the images on this forum.  The other two adult victims also have fight / defense wounds.

Jeremy had no wounds.  This suggests a struggle took place between three adults who became deceased; and within the context of "daughter gone berserk".

The boss couldn't have arranged this - nobody saw it coming.  Afterwards, the relatives couldn't bring themselves to countenance it...  partly due to their predicament and motives.

I enjoyed reading Buddy's post though - it made me chuckle to myself.

How come Venezis didn't mention these wounds in his autopsy notes and why didn't the defense see them on enlarged pictures of Sheila's right hand at trial?

[Roch]

How come Venezis didn't mention these wounds in his autopsy notes and why didn't the defense see them on enlarged pictures of Sheila's right hand at trial?

As far as I know, it's not known for certain whether he didn't mention them in his original post-mortem notes.  Many things were re-written on 20th September. 

As for enlarged pictures at trial - it would depend upon the quality of images used at trial.  The prosecution and Drake seemed to pre-empt the defence noticing them - with what I would describe as a 'choreographed' discussion during the trial (that facilitated the hand wounds being passed off as 'smears').

[Jan]

In addition, Sheila has wounds upon the length of her right arm - i.e. from upper arm to wrist; and upon her right hand.  An angled wound upon her finger matches the shape of a machined part on the Anschutz.  Some of her wounds are visible in post-mortem photographs.  These are not the only fight wounds upon her body either.  Of these other wounds, at least one other can be seen in the images on this forum.  The other two adult victims also have fight / defense wounds.

Jeremy had no wounds.  This suggests a struggle took place between three adults who became deceased; and within the context of "daughter gone berserk".

The boss couldn't have arranged this - nobody saw it coming.  Afterwards, the relatives couldn't bring themselves to countenance it...  partly due to their predicament and motives.

I enjoyed reading Buddy's post though - it made me chuckle to myself.

I was reading some of the family statements again . It is quite amazing the un pc attitudes and determination in their aim , even though they were not actually that close to the bambers . It was totally single minded .

[Caroline]

As far as I know, it's not known for certain whether he didn't mention them in his original post-mortem notes.  Many things were re-written on 20th September. 

As for enlarged pictures at trial - it would depend upon the quality of images used at trial.  The prosecution and Drake seemed to pre-empt the defence noticing them - with what I would describe as a 'choreographed' discussion during the trial (that facilitated the hand wounds being passed off as 'smears').

I think it is known that he didn't mention them, his notes are on the forum and I don't buy the presumption that they are faked - that is just a convenient get out of jail card (pardon the pun).

I think even in 1985, they had pretty good camera's that could take decent pictures - they weren't using a box brownie - the marks were described as smears because that's what they are.

[Roch]

I think it is known that he didn't mention them, his notes are on the forum and I don't buy the presumption that they are faked - that is just a convenient get out of jail card (pardon the pun).

I think even in 1985, they had pretty good camera's that could take decent pictures - they weren't using a box brownie - the marks were described as smears because that's what they are.

The marks were purposely described as smears by the pathologist, precisely because the jury would believe a pathologist .. and because such wounds in this case, would have undermined the prosecution's case.  Blood does not behave in the manner you are suggesting.  Nor can it break the skin. 

[Caroline]

The marks were purposely described as smears by the pathologist, precisely because the jury would believe a pathologist .. and because such wounds in this case, would have undermined the prosecution's case.  Blood does not behave in the manner you are suggesting.  Nor can it break the skin.

I'm not getting into this again with you - I think you're wrong and I don't believe a pathologist would put his career on the line in the manner you are suggesting. His notes are on the forum and there is no mention of any cuts. They had enlarged autopsy photographs available at trail and no one noticed any such marks as those you describe. 

[Roch]

I'm not getting into this again with you - I think you're wrong and I don't believe a pathologist would put his career on the line in the manner you are suggesting. His notes are on the forum and there is no mention of any cuts. They had enlarged autopsy photographs available at trail and no one noticed any such marks as those you describe.

If your ability to assess photographs is hampered by your own beliefs regarding what an 'official' would or would not be prepared to do - then you are likely to find yourself in disagreement with other people who are not hampered by such restraints!

The truth is - you dont know what they looked at at trial.  None of us do.  None of us can know the quality of images.  And even if the wounds were discernable - the pathologist passed them of as 'smearing'.  Juries don't tend to serve under the impression that the pathologist is going to pull a fast one. 

[nugnug]

Yes it can. The details of the crime do not match Jeremy's alleged 'confession' that Julie claims to have made to her. Jeremy does not have time to ring 'the boss' then shoot Sheila again because she survived the first shot. She would have bled to death within 10 seconds.

The rigor mortis and livor mortis in Sheila and the movement spotted in the house rules Jeremy out. Unless you want to argue that "the boss" hired MM all along and he hid inside the loft once the raid team entered.

If Jeremy was weak minded enough and easily manipulated so JM gets him to carry all this out. He would break under police interrogation like most subordinate participants do.

no mm has an alibi but somone else could of possbly hid in the loft we know it wasnt jeremy but theres a few other possble suspects.

[Caroline]

If your ability to assess photographs is hampered by your own beliefs regarding what an 'official' would or would not be prepared to do - then you are likely to find yourself in disagreement with other people who are not hampered by such restraints!

The truth is - you dont know what they looked at at trial.  None of us do.  None of us can know the quality of images.  And even if the wounds were discernable - the pathologist passed them of as 'smearing'.  Juries don't tend to serve under the impression that the pathologist is going to pull a fast one.

You're hampered by your own beliefs too Roch but you can't see it. My opinion has sweet FA to do with what is official and if you knew me, you would know that.

The truth is, you don't know either and you have no explanation of why a 'pathologist' would risk his career to 'pull a fast one'. I don't believe he did.

[Harry]

If your ability to assess photographs is hampered by your own beliefs regarding what an 'official' would or would not be prepared to do - then you are likely to find yourself in disagreement with other people who are not hampered by such restraints!

The truth is - you don't know what they looked at at trial.  None of us do.  None of us can know the quality of images.  And even if the wounds were discernible - the pathologist passed them of as 'smearing'.  Juries don't tend to serve under the impression that the pathologist is going to pull a fast one.

"The truth is - you don't know what they looked at at trial.  None of us do.  None of us can know the quality of images."

That's not true. Jeremy had been complaining about the poor quality of the photographs available to the defence for years. I have only seen one high resolution picture of Sheila online. That is the controversial wet blood photograph. Some of the pictures are in monochrome, some have a blue cast making the carpet look grey. Those pink pictures of June Bamber are just ridiculous.

If the jury saw high resolution pictures would not the defence still have them?

They finally obtained the negatives in 2011, but so far have done nothing with them.

[Harry]

The marks were purposely described as smears by the pathologist, precisely because the jury would believe a pathologist .. and because such wounds in this case, would have undermined the prosecution's case.  Blood does not behave in the manner you are suggesting.  Nor can it break the skin.

I think what some people are suggesting is that the police deliberately made available poor quality copies to disguise the fact that Sheila had cuts and abrasions on her arms and also to disguise the fact that the blood trails were still wet when the pictures were taken. 

It is worth considering the question why after such a long time were Bamber's defence given the negatives in 2011. One possible reason is that the CCRC had rejected the testimony of Meloni and Cavalli in relation to the one high resolution photograph of Sheila the Defence had obtained, so the thinking may have been:

"We can let them have as many photographs showing wet blood as they want. Since we have rejected that evidence they can't use the same argument again."

But they may have miscalculated. They may have overlooked the fact that the good quality photos the defence now have can prove that Sheila has cuts and abrasions and that is a separate point. They are relying on technicalites to reject evidence, but they may have slipped up.

[Roch]

I think what some people are suggesting is that the police deliberately made available poor quality copies to disguise the fact that Sheila had cuts and abrasions on her arms and also to disguise the fact that the blood trails were still wet when the pictures were taken. 

It is worth considering the question why after such a long time were Bamber's defence given the negatives in 2011. One possible reason is that the CCRC had rejected the testimony of Meloni and Cavalli in relation to the one high resolution photograph of Sheila the Defence had obtained, so the thinking may have been:

"We can let them have as many photographs showing wet blood as they want. Since we have rejected that evidence they can't use the same argument again."

But they may have miscalculated. They may have overlooked the fact that the good quality photos the defence now have can prove that Sheila has cuts and abrasions and that is a separate point. They are relying on technicalites to reject evidence, but they may have slipped up.

This opinion most closely represents my own opinion on this.  I think the truth may be a little more complex - but you have the gist of it.

I don't think Bird (and/or whoever else took pictures) were fully competent when discharging their duties as crime scene photographer/s on the day. 

I agree regarding the concept of 'keeping Bamber in on a technicality' - which is the exact opposite of what is often suggested.   

I also think the negatives were released and sent to lab at a time when Simon McKay was fully committed to concentrating on the silencer evidence.  The defence then had to face the blow of demands for further experiments and reports which they could not fund (and the resulting failed judicial review).

There was also the small matter of four million pages of unindexed unreferenced documents released to the defence, totally jumbled up (probably a deliberate act).

Regardless of any potential legal wranglings and technicalities - I'm not sure that the significance of the wounds is 'sinking in' for some members on the forum.  The significance is huge: 

Some cuts are completely independent of any other blood in their locality.  Therefore such cuts cannot be 'trails' or 'runs' or 'smears' - since they have no source of blood other than the cut itself.

Some members have painted themselves in to a corner with their stance - in several instances, a changed one.   I think they are really struggling to come to terms with the implications of Sheila having wounds.

[Roch]

You're hampered by your own beliefs too Roch but you can't see it. My opinion has sweet FA to do with what is official and if you knew me, you would know that.

The truth is, you don't know either and you have no explanation of why a 'pathologist' would risk his career to 'pull a fast one'. I don't believe he did.

That's not strictly true though.  An explanation was given here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8513.0.html

It's just that nobody on your side wants to acknowledge such explanations.

[Roch]

I have thought long and hard about this. It is a fact that if SC is not the killer then only JB remains IMO.
He tells the boss that he is fed up with farm work and needs to get out but has no money.
The boss says well kill them. He says I can't do that. so the boss says I will help.
The boss says I have got some sleeping pills you can use, so he tries, but they don't work.
The boss tells JB to shoot them all and a naïve JB agrees, as long as the boss helps him to cover him.
During the murders JB phones the boss and says it is going well. He phones the boss a while later and says that SC is still alive. The boss says shoot her again.
When the police arrive at the farm JB feels uncertain so calls the boss and says I need you here.
The boss arrives, and comforts JB and tells him to stick to his story.
After a while the police begin to suspect that all is not well with the suicide theory. The family are not happy with the police investigation, and start to look into things. The boss realises that the family are on the right track and needs an out. What to do? Then the boss has a brain wave put JB in the frame alone, and save her skin.
The boss goes to the cops and the rest is history.

Sorry for dragging your thread off-topic Buddy.  I did chuckle when I read this.  The boss was certainly more savvy at self preservation than Jeremy was.  That's for sure.  I think though that she was also a pawn caught between relatives and police.

[Steve_uk]

I think if the Defence could prove that Sheila made contact with Nevill or June it would be a good start.