The drop / pendant earring...

[Roch]

Yeah that's what it looks like to my untrained eye.

Well it would do wouldn't it?  What a load of tosh.  BTW, how do you 'train' an eye to spot something.  I'll give you a clue... You don't need a phD.

When David was first shown it, he suggested it was a different corporeal object altogether. Now he favours that it's non corporeal object (well almost). One thing you both have in common is that you both individually believe that only yourself can solve the case. I think it has fostered in you an unhealthy, obsessive dismissiveness.

[Roch]

If there was anything untoward they would have been struck off.

What aspects of the pathological evidence do you believe are harmful to Bamber?

Why would a prosecution friendly pathologist be struck off? They're like the goose that laid the golden egg.

Don't understand your second question.

[snow66!]

I don't think it's been suggested before. But if you think you're on to something, you should look in to it further. Don't let people with rigidly closed minds put you off.

Im afraid i dont have any soft ware or expertise to check out such an idea Roch.You could try blowing up the pictures of the rifles and look for minor differences i suppose.

[David1819]

David - look at a picture of the rifle in the “lowered” position. The end of the barrel is not in contact with Sheila’s body, this can be seen by the shadow in the picture that you posted.
Now look at the close up pictures in the “raised” position the end of the barrel immediately before the silencer screw (forward of the forward sights) is in contact with her neck, it can be seen from several angles - this cannot be paralax error

I don't know what you are talking about. Please attach photos and demonstrate.

[David1819]

Well it would do wouldn't it?  What a load of tosh.  BTW, how do you 'train' an eye to spot something.  I'll give you a clue... You don't need a phD.

When David was first shown it, he suggested it was a different corporeal object altogether. Now he favours that it's non corporeal object (well almost). One thing you both have in common is that you both individually believe that only yourself can solve the case. I think it has fostered in you an unhealthy, obsessive dismissiveness.

I was first shown a doctored photograph.

[David1819]

Well it would do wouldn't it?  What a load of tosh.  BTW, how do you 'train' an eye to spot something.  I'll give you a clue... You don't need a phD.

When David was first shown it, he suggested it was a different corporeal object altogether. Now he favours that it's non corporeal object (well almost). One thing you both have in common is that you both individually believe that only yourself can solve the case. I think it has fostered in you an unhealthy, obsessive dismissiveness.

The case can be solved by anyone studying the evidence. Looney conspiracy theories will always be dismissed.

[Roch]

I was first shown a doctored photograph.

Regardless of filter, the item is visible. Some filters will make the item more visible and some less. You know this and so does everyone who has a smart phone and has played around with photos. You are being deliberately obtuse and your use of the term doctored is offensive and misplaced.

[Roch]

The case can be solved by anyone studying the evidence. Looney conspiracy theories will always be dismissed.

Obsessively trying to shift all blame away from police and on to relatives instead will not solve this case.

[David1819]

Obsessively trying to shift all blame away from police and on to relatives instead will not solve this case.

I follow the evidence. Looney conspiracy theories involving the police crop up a lot here, hence I end up refuting them.

[Roch]

I follow the evidence. Looney conspiracy theories involving the police crop up a lot here, hence I end up refuting them.

Using the term 'conspiracy theorist' in a pejorative manner simply closes off and undermines meaningful debate. If nobody ever conspired, the term conspiracy wouldn't exist.

[David1819]

Using the term 'conspiracy theorist' in a pejorative manner simply closes off and undermines meaningful debate. If nobody ever conspired, the term conspiracy wouldn't exist.

We have had this discussion before.

[David1819]

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=38630;image
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=39391;image

If these post correctly then hopefully it clearly shows the movement. The first photo looks to be taken from almost straight above - no paralax error on where the barrel is.
The second photo is from a side position clearly showing the Barrel well above the necklace line

No, that is a parallax.

[Roch]

No, that is a parallax.

You believe so but you're having some trouble convincing members.

[David1819]

You believe so but you're having some trouble convincing members.

Remember my 3D work? I have just crudely set up this scenario up in Blender. The only thing that I have changed is the angle of the camera.

[David1819]

Remember my 3D work? I have just crudely set up this scenario up in Blender. The only thing that I have changed is the angle of the camera.

And if you are still not convinced - I have made a video

https://streamable.com/adtqf9