so wheres this forensic breakthrough then.

[David1819]

I wonder how Bill Robertson is ? He used to PM me. He was a cop.

If I remember correctly he was harassed into silence

[lookout]

If I remember correctly he was harassed into silence

Probably. I got the distinct impression that he wanted to say more and was holding back at the time. He was definitely involved somewhere but didn't want to give too much away. However that was his prerogative and I didn't force the issue.

[lookout]

His message on the JB Campaign site is worth a read. It's headed : Supplement. Shock. Trauma. Response.

[lookout]

His message on the JB Campaign site is worth a read. It's headed : Supplement. Shock. Trauma. Response.

Ending with :" Military assaults are often timed to take place around 3am because the body is at its lowest ebb ".

[David1819]

Yes it was initially his argument. IMHO, images of her crime scene show that she had a lot of small nicks, cuts and grazes.  It's virtually the only aspect that I retain a slight interest in.

I have spoken to Bill. I hope he wont mind me mentioning this.

He told me that in the autopsy photos, All these streaks of blood had been washed off. So that proves my point if I understand him correctly.

However he goes on to say that there are cuts and gouges visible on the back of the hand and arm once the arm had been washed. So that is very interesting.

So it sounds like you just misunderstood him. Nevertheless he could actually be onto something.

[Steve_uk]

The Bamberettes have no concrete proof that there was any physical contact between Sheila and her parents.

[David1819]

The Bamberettes have no concrete proof that there was any physical contact between Sheila and her parents.

Julie was a lying bitch Steve get over it 

[Roch]

The Bamberettes have no concrete proof that there was any physical contact between Sheila and her parents.

Depends on who / what you think is responsible for certain marks on all three adult victims.

[Roch]

So it sounds like you just misunderstood him.

He's probably referring to the quality of autopsy photos, i.e. the photographer. You would have to take close-ups of the washed body in order to capture all the fingernail cuts and scrapes etc. I doubt there's any misunderstanding.

[David1819]

He's probably referring to the quality of autopsy photos, i.e. the photographer. You would have to take close-ups of the washed body in order to capture all the fingernail cuts and scrapes etc. I doubt there's any misunderstanding.

I think you have misunderstood him. He told me the streaks/streams had been washed off. But there are cuts and marks visible elsewhere on the hand and arm after the washing.

The autopsy photos as far as I know are good quality. We have one of Neville’s arm.

[Roch]

I think you have misunderstood him. He said the streaks/streams had been washed off. But there are cuts visible and marks visible elsewhere on the hand and arm.

The autopsy photos as far as I know are good quality. We have one of Neville’s arm.

Pretty certain I haven't misunderstood, as communicated for over a year.  Blood will wash off, so I don't fully understand your argument here.  Also, have you took in to account whether any autopsy negs have been cut?

[David1819]

Pretty certain I haven't misunderstood, as communicated for over a year.  Blood will wash off, so I don't fully understand your argument here.  Also, have you took in to account whether any autopsy negs have been cut?

Blood streaks will wash off but cuts and gouges wont. He told me those streaks were washed off. If that is correct then they are just runs of blood drops like I have always said.

However what remains AFTER the wash is important. He told me that marks did remain on the back of hand and up her arm after the wash.

I am sure Bill will clarify if he is reading this.

[Roch]

Blood streaks will wash off but cuts and gouges wont. He told me those streaks were washed off. If that is correct then they are just runs of blood drops like I have always said.

However what remains AFTER the wash is important. He told me that marks did remain on the back of hand and up her arm after the wash.

I am sure Bill will clarify if he is reading this.

This is somewhat stating the obvious.  However, cuts can be fine and therefore not necessarily captured by photos that are not close-ups.

[David1819]

This is somewhat stating the obvious.  However, cuts can be fine and therefore not necessarily captured by photos that are not close-ups.

I am making an illustration. Hang on 

[David1819]

This is somewhat stating the obvious.  However, cuts can be fine and therefore not necessarily captured by photos that are not close-ups.

Lets pretend these two photos below are the autopsy before and after the wash. If I understand BR correctly, what he has seen is something like the one I have photoshoped at the bottom. The skin has been washed and thus any marks that remains is damaged skin and wounds ect ect. Probably like what I have circled in blue. There are some marks there that I have always suspected MIGHT be cuts and gouges. But I always thought they were most probably dried blood stains that Vanezis washed off (like the streaks) since he never mentioned such marks. However if these marks existed AFTER the body was washed like BR said then that would change my view completely.