The drop / pendant earring...

[Jane]

I'm quite happy to say that it looks like a snagged earring to me but I have yet to see any evidence of a damaged earlobe which I would imagine would bleed quite a lot so reserve my judgement about the significance of this.

With respect to Bill and Roch, you can't expect us to believe you have won the lottery when you only reveal one number, we need to see all six, especially with JB's long history of grandiose claims and bare faced lies.

AD, you may take it from me that it doesn't just bleed. Gravity takes over and, drip by copious drip, it BLEEDS! If she'd turned her head sharply, the blood would have flicked on the person nearest to her. A snagged earring says nothing more than that she MAY have struggled with someone. It doesn't say she did, and it doesn't say, with whom.

[David1819]

You might as well post what alternative explanation you have for the earring, so that we can explore it.

To me, it just seems like an area on of the nightdress that is not bloodstained. Hence the entire thing is over shadowed in other photos.

As for the wounds - how did Sheila manage to kill two adults in a confined space with furniture, including using the rifle as a club, without obtaining any marks on her own person in the process? 

I have already explained this to you. I am not going over it again.

[lookout]

I'm quite happy to say that it looks like a snagged earring to me but I have yet to see any evidence of a damaged earlobe which I would imagine would bleed quite a lot so reserve my judgement about the significance of this.

With respect to Bill and Roch, you can't expect us to believe you have won the lottery when you only reveal one number, we need to see all six, especially with JB's long history of grandiose claims and bare faced lies.

AD can you list all the " grandiose claims and bare-faced lies " that you claim JB was/ is capable of ?

[Bill Robertson]

To me, it just seems like an area on of the nightdress that is not bloodstained. Hence the entire thing is over shadowed in other photos.

LOL WALOB
The object shines when a flash photograph is taken from the side or rear of SC but does not appear visible in photos taken from her feet up towards the face. That is why in some pictures it just appears as a black blob as there is no reflected light.

Now, with reference to your tedious and juvenile references to the discovery of Sheila's 28 wounds in 2016, it was originally planned to refer this to the CCRC then, which could have resulted in his release in 2017. It was subsequently Jeremy's decision to delay referring to the CCRC in 2016 as so much new evidence was being uncovered and he wanted it all considered at once.

Those who have seen the evidence of the 70 unreported wounds to the adults all agree that it is sufficient on its own to secure his release, as will be seen in due course.

Maybe you could grow up and cease making reference to my confidence that he could be released in 2017? It would be an adult way of going forward. Or, does it give your kiddie ego a thrill every time you mention it?

[David1819]

LOL WALOB
The object shines when a flash photograph is taken from the side or rear of SC but does not appear visible in photos taken from her feet up towards the face. That is why in some pictures it just appears as a black blob as there is no reflected light.

Now, with reference to your tedious and juvenile references to the discovery of Sheila's 28 wounds in 2016, it was originally planned to refer this to the CCRC then, which could have resulted in his release in 2017. It was subsequently Jeremy's decision to delay referring to the CCRC in 2016 as so much new evidence was being uncovered and he wanted it all considered at once.

Those who have seen the evidence of the 70 unreported wounds to the adults all agree that it is sufficient on its own to secure his release, as will be seen in due course.

Maybe you could grow up and cease making reference to my confidence that he could be released in 2017? It would be an adult way of going forward. Or, does it give your kiddie ego a thrill every time you mention it?

you are crazy

[lookout]

AD can you list all the " grandiose claims and bare-faced lies " that you claim JB was/ is capable of ?

Why would he bother lying when he is where he is ? JB wishes to come out of there, not stay in, he's not that stupid to realise that by lying his length of stay increases.
It was in the best interests of others to do the lying and bragging about their grandiose living habits-----while asking Nevill for loans and running to granny cap in hand. Little things the jury knew nothing about.

[Armchair Detective]

AD can you list all the " grandiose claims and bare-faced lies " that you claim JB was/ is capable of ?

See the CT website.

[Jane]

LOL WALOB
The object shines when a flash photograph is taken from the side or rear of SC but does not appear visible in photos taken from her feet up towards the face. That is why in some pictures it just appears as a black blob as there is no reflected light.

Now, with reference to your tedious and juvenile references to the discovery of Sheila's 28 wounds in 2016, it was originally planned to refer this to the CCRC then, which could have resulted in his release in 2017. It was subsequently Jeremy's decision to delay referring to the CCRC in 2016 as so much new evidence was being uncovered and he wanted it all considered at once.

Those who have seen the evidence of the 70 unreported wounds to the adults all agree that it is sufficient on its own to secure his release, as will be seen in due course.

Maybe you could grow up and cease making reference to my confidence that he could be released in 2017? It would be an adult way of going forward. Or, does it give your kiddie ego a thrill every time you mention it?

Bill, it may have been better to have kept that to yourself. If someone told you a convicted killer, claiming innocence, elected to stay in prison for several more years, because, despite that there was evidence to release him, he believed there was more to come, I rather imagine you'd be thinking, if not, saying, what several of us are thinking/saying, now.

[Roch]

To me, it just seems like an area on of the nightdress that is not bloodstained. Hence the entire thing is over shadowed in other photos.



I have already explained this to you. I am not going over it again.

An area of the nightdress that isn't bloodstained? Yet it is not the same colour as the rest of the unstained nightdress? It also happens have what appear to be fairly uniform black lines on it?

Fair play to Armchair who has displayed honesty and an open mind.

As for the wounds, you have never provided an explanation, other than saying 'transferred' and 'gunshot wounds'. That just doesn't cut the mustard David.

 

[Armchair Detective]

AD, you may take it from me that it doesn't just bleed. Gravity takes over and, drip by copious drip, it BLEEDS! If she'd turned her head sharply, the blood would have flicked on the person nearest to her. A snagged earring says nothing more than that she MAY have struggled with someone. It doesn't say she did, and it doesn't say, with whom.

Yes and no. A snagged earring is just a snagged earring. A snagged earring and a damaged ear would suggest a struggle but not with whom, unless the purple doo dah on the kitchen floor can be reconciled with the earring. 

However, if evidence of a damaged ear exists, it suggests some very poor police and pathology work that needs some explanation.

[Bill Robertson]

Bill, it may have been better to have kept that to yourself. If someone told you a convicted killer, claiming innocence, elected to stay in prison for several more years, because, despite that there was evidence to release him, he believed there was more to come, I rather imagine you'd be thinking, if not, saying, what several of us are thinking/saying, now.

He could have been released on a legal technicality years ago. It is his choice to remain in prison until he is completely exonerated. I admire him for that, and that he will go for the whole lot that caused him to be falsely convicted.

[Armchair Detective]

Bill, it may have been better to have kept that to yourself. If someone told you a convicted killer, claiming innocence, elected to stay in prison for several more years, because, despite that there was evidence to release him, he believed there was more to come, I rather imagine you'd be thinking, if not, saying, what several of us are thinking/saying, now.

Exactly. He can apply to the CCRC as many times as he likes.

[Roch]

AD, you may take it from me that it doesn't just bleed. Gravity takes over and, drip by copious drip, it BLEEDS! If she'd turned her head sharply, the blood would have flicked on the person nearest to her. A snagged earring says nothing more than that she MAY have struggled with someone. It doesn't say she did, and it doesn't say, with whom.

Well you can guarantee it wasn't JB...

Firstly, he had no marks on him (which Bill and I would argue completely distinguishes him from Sheila, June and Nevill).

Secondly, the prosecution had the option of choosing to use the earring to suggest a struggle with JB. Instead, they thought 'discretion was the better part of valour'; erased the earring from records; and ran with a 'Sheila struggled with nobody' scenario. 

[Jane]

Well you can guarantee it wasn't JB...

Firstly, he had no marks on him (which Bill and I would argue completely distinguishes him from Sheila, June and Nevill).

Secondly, the prosecution had the option of choosing to use the earring to suggest a struggle with JB. Instead, they thought 'discretion was the better part of valour'; erased the earring from records; and ran with a 'Sheila struggled with nobody' scenario.

Now how can you be certain she wasn't in a struggle with JB? You claim there were no marks on him. He wasn't examined for such because he wasn't a suspect. So in a situation in which JB is in some form of protective clothing -NO! I'm not going down the wetsuit route!!- and Sheila was wearing a flimsy nightdress, it can be reasonably expected that JB wouldn't have been marked.

[Roch]

Now how can you be certain she wasn't in a struggle with JB? You claim there were no marks on him. He wasn't examined for such because he wasn't a suspect. So in a situation in which JB is in some form of protective clothing -NO! I'm not going down the wetsuit route!!- and Sheila was wearing a flimsy nightdress, it can be reasonably expected that JB wouldn't have been marked.

I think he was observed for any obvious marks.

The prosecution had the opportunity to argue that a struggle took place between Sheila and Jeremy.  They probably felt that if they used the earring to advance that argument, it would open up a can of worms.