The drop / pendant earring...

[Roch]

What evidence makes you believe this?

You think her scene looks genuine? it looks very stagey to me.  As if somebody is trying to get Sheila to speak from the other side.. 'I know I've got two gunshot wounds.. but look.. it was me'. 

Those who support guilt will say.. 'yes, that's exactly what Jeremy did'.

[lookout]

It stands to sense that Sheila's head had been on the right side because of the way the blood had pooled in that area, before re-arranging in the dorsal position.

[Rob_]

I can assure you 100% there is no movement of the gun in those photos. I used photogrammetry software because I set out to try and prove it was moved, but the opposite turned out to be the case.

Which images did you use David? I am far from convinced sorry? my job sometimes involves creating models from often hundreds of photographs.

[David1819]

it looks very stagey to me. 

🛸👽

[Roch]

🛸👽

👽👾🛸

[lookout]

However the photographs are viewed, they certainly won't be how they were first found, and that's something we'll never get to see.

[Jane]

However the photographs are viewed, they certainly won't be how they were first found, and that's something we'll never get to see.

Which rather begs the question, is there proof that such ever existed, other than, because of the quality, having been rejects?

[lookout]

Which rather begs the question, is there proof that such ever existed, other than, because of the quality, having been rejects?

Such a situation can work both ways.

[killingeve]

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.

Only a fool would deny miscarriages of justice occur but are you able to cite a case where multiple participants conspired against a very ordinary person? 

Supporters would have us believe that everyone conspired from first respondents to the Home Office pathologist. 

[Roch]

Only a fool would deny miscarriages of justice occur but are you able to cite a case where multiple participants conspired against a very ordinary person? 

Supporters would have us believe that everyone conspired from first respondents to the Home Office pathologist.

Not from and to. Guilters would have us believe that supporters claim things are that simple, which they do not.

BTW you are a supporter, as you well know. But I will not mention that again for a few months. 

[killingeve]

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.

Without wishing to sound rude I think you lack sensible reasoning.  Prof Vanezis has worked all over the globe over decades.  If he was as you put it a "prosecution friendly pathologist" how has he been able to commit perjury and slip under the radar?  If the police and pathologists are routinely conspiring then how come defence pathologists go along with this?  If they're not routinely conspiring then what makes Bamber's case any different to all the thousands of other cases?  And why would Prof Knight for the defence go along with the perjury? 

Prof Vanezis' trial testimony is in the library here - what aspect of it was harmful to Bamber's defence?
He always maintained he was unable to conclude murder or suicide.  If he testified that he thought suicide was more likely or that he didn't think Sheila could have overpowered her father in the kitchen then I can understand why supporters might be aggrieved but he said nothing of the sort.  The pathological evidence is entirely neutral.  Bamber has never challenged any aspect of it.

Bamber's conviction rests on the blood in the silencer not the pathological evidence and wishful thinking about dangling earrings and unreported defence wounds.   

[killingeve]

Not from and to. Guilters would have us believe that supporters claim things are that simple, which they do not.

BTW you are a supporter, as you well know. But I will not mention that again for a few months.

The case is simple.  Its supporters who want to over complicate with fictitious claims.

Bit silly keep saying I'm supporter.  What evidence do you have to support this? 

[Roch]

The case is simple.  Its supporters who want to over complicate with fictitious claims.

Again an over simplification.

Supporters who work in 'echo chambers' are more prone to their unconscious bias leading them to interpret what they want to see from ambiguous evidence.

Not all supporters fit in to the above category but may at times stray in to it.

Some supporters have completely different theories.

Your blanket opinion and dismissal that all supporter claims are fictitious is in part caused by your own rigid stance, which is based upon some evidence from 1985. 

It's you that chooses not to be more open minded. But you should understand that your choice to be closed minded can have absolutely no impact on the actual evidence itself.

[lookout]

It's a known fact that lights were going on or off in various rooms, curtains opening/ closing. Who was doing this when all occupants were allegedly dead at 03.26 ( said EP ) ? While JB was outside with police officers.
Can guilters explain this " phenomenon ?".

[Armchair Detective]

Jeremy Bamber@JBamberFacebook·Feb 15

The jury were not told the blood was also an exact match for beneficiary Robert Boutflour. Sheilas DNA was not found yet that of an unknown male was. Robert Boutflour never gave a DNA sample.
Please follow, share, like, comment

This doesn't seem like confirmation bias Roch, it appears to be a bare faced lie and blatant appeal to tin foil hatters.