The drop / pendant earring...

[David1819]

Roch. The photo you sent me a while back has been edited to make this area of the dress appear brighter than it should be. And the beads have been added in. 

[Roch]

Roch. The photo you sent me a while back has been edited to make this area of the dress appear brighter than it should be. And the beads have been added in. 

You must have missed this post David...

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11105.msg514974.html#msg514974

[David1819]

You must have missed this post David...

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11105.msg514974.html#msg514974

The photo has been edited. That particular area of the photo has been brightened up to mislead.

[Roch]

The photo has been edited. That particular area of the photo has been brightened up to mislead.

You've just completely ignored my post in reply to yours.

[Rob_]

Doctored.

You cannot doctor negatives Adam.

[David1819]

You cannot doctor negatives Adam.

But you can doctor JPEGs.

If it was an earring,  it would be as obvious as all the other jewellery Sheila is wearing. It won't appear as dress fabric with minor voids of bloods that need to be distorted with photoediting by someone who claims to be able to see 70 wounds nobody else can see. 

[Rob_]

But you can doctor JPEGs.

If it was an earring,  it would be as obvious as all the other jewellery Sheila is wearing. It won't appear as dress fabric with minor voids of bloods that need to be distorted with photoediting by someone who claims to be able to see 70 wounds nobody else can see. 

Hopefully the negatives are still in existence then this can easily be verified? I don't think anyone would doctor JPEGs if the original negatives were available?

[Roch]

Hopefully the negatives are still in existence then this can easily be verified? I don't think anyone would doctor JPEGs if the original negatives were available?

He is exagarating the issue because he cannot accept the existence of the object in question. In the post I put up, you can clearly see that the object has a different appearance in accordance with whichever filter is applied. The object however is still present, whichever filter is applied.

[arthur]

If it is an earing lying loose on Sheila's nightdress, then it follows that it was dislodged or ripped off in some way or other, in or around the location she was found in.

The 'earing' couldn't have come off in any fight or struggle she may have had in the kitchen with Nevill, as it would've fallen to the floor. 

[Jane]

If it is an earing lying loose on Sheila's nightdress, then it follows that it was dislodged or ripped off in some way or other, in or around the location she was found in.

The 'earing' couldn't have come off in any fight or struggle she may have had in the kitchen with Nevill, as it would've fallen to the floor.

I can only add that, had it been a precious earring, under any other circumstances she could have considered herself very lucky to have had it become attached, as opposed, like mine, to being lost, none, I hasten to add, as the result of a struggle. The question has to be put, surely violent movement would have dislodged it?

[David1819]

Hopefully the negatives are still in existence then this can easily be verified? I don't think anyone would doctor JPEGs if the original negatives were available?

The claim has come from somebody who has already admitted to using software to edit photos so he can "see through" blood and find cuts underneath, something that is completely impossible. The same person who claims he cannot reveal much because "forces of darkness" are watching him.

There is a reason why a conspiratard is the only person who takes Bill seriously.

[Roch]

The claim has come from somebody who has already admitted to using software to edit photos so he can "see through" blood and find cuts underneath, something that is completely impossible. The same person who claims he cannot reveal much because "forces of darkness" are watching him.

There is a reason why a conspiratard is the only person who takes Bill seriously.

It's probably more likely that Sheila both obtained injuries to herself and caused injuries to others, during a horrific and tragic incident. During the prosecution of Jeremy Bamber, all of this had to be either hidden or explained away. The real mystery in this case, is exactly what happened in between these two points.

[snow66!]

The claim has come from somebody who has already admitted to using software to edit photos so he can "see through" blood and find cuts underneath, something that is completely impossible. The same person who claims he cannot reveal much because "forces of darkness" are watching him.

There is a reason why a conspiratard is the only person who takes Bill seriously.

Hi Dave how are you tonight.I see what your saying,but what do you say about the object or otherwise disappearing once the rifle has been adjusted,ie image MS12.In this photo the earring ,white patch,whatever you want to call it is gone.But if you look closely at this image,the white patch seems to have moved up nearer the top of her shoulder.at the edge of the collar.What i mean is,why did it disappear once the rifle was re-adjusted and possibly appear somewhere else,no matter what it is.

[Bill Robertson]

Hopefully the negatives are still in existence then this can easily be verified? I don't think anyone would doctor JPEGs if the original negatives were available?

Precisely. What would be the point of doctoring images that are going to the CCRC where police forensic scientists will be able to examine them? The only manipulation to the images has been to correct the underexposure of some of DC Bird's negatives. Apparently, he was inexperienced. I read somewhere that WHF was only the second time he had photographed a crime scene. Some of his photos are underexposed and slightly out of focus. By lightening some of the images and sharpening the focus extra detail becomes apparent. It is absurd (and desperate) to suggest that any falsification of images has taken place.

[lookout]

Let's also not forget that photographic technology in forensic areas has vastly improved since 1985 !
Photo's that are available will have been scrutinised to the last detail, hence why " supposedly unseen" pics
will bear no resemblance to those which were taken at the scene.
The CCRC, in the past, wouldn't have seen the finer results from previous submissions.