'Cops' and 'others' stated 'Sheila's hands' were perfectly clean ! - but if so..

[mike tesko]

It 'beggars belief'!!!

Since, the ' existence of the bloodied hand / fingermarks of her nightdress casts doubt on that postulation!

[mike tesko]

Was this bloodstained hand / fingermark (impression) wearing a glove, or not?

If so, or if not, and she had not been responsible for causing the marks in question, it can only lead to the conclusion, that somebody else was present when she was shot, and her death posture was stage managed!

[mike tesko]

   
If so, or if not, and she had not been responsible for causing the marks in question, it can only lead to the conclusion, that somebody else was present when she was shot, and her death posture was stage managed!

If, on the other hand, 'Sheila' had been responsible for making the said bloodstained impression on the front lower part of her nightdress ( hidden from site by her right arm / and her hand) - then 'how could that very same right hand' / 'fingers were 'blood free'..

[snow66!]

If, on the other hand, 'Sheila' had been responsible for making the said bloodstained impression on the front lower part of her nightdress ( hidden from site by her right arm / and her hand) - then 'how could that very same right hand' / 'fingers were 'blood free'..

Hi Mike,hope your well.Yes the hand print makes little sense.The question,as you say,is whether the  print was made by Sheilas own hand or someone elses? Both explainations cause problems,as you say.If Sheila made the print with blood from her own wounds,why does her hand look so clean? You think it is a print made by the thumb/forefinger area of her hand,I dont see this pattern.The print looks more like three fingers,possibly with the thumb tucked in below causing the dark area between the two fingers closest together.But as you say Mike,the cops denied that the inside of her hand was bloodied.So,could it be someone elses hand print? Well,this too causes problems,it is a strange place for anyone else to leave a hand print.Lets say it was made by either Nev/June,that would mean they would have needed to be standing up and BEHIND Sheila,because the print is facing forward and down.It would also have been made with their right hand.If Nev/June were facing Sheila,the print would be facing towards her back and made by the left hand.Make any sense? So,could Nev/June been standing behind Sheila making a grab at her? Ismail has us believing that Sheilas nightdress was rucked up front,back and sideways to varying degrees,so if the print was made before hand ,could the position of the print be distorted as it were,And once the dress was straightened out,might the print be at an entirely different angle,maybe facing backwards?Who knows,the dress is gone forever,criminal,totally criminal! Now you mention that the print may have been made by someone stage managing the body.Well the stager,as it were,would have needed to be in a strange position to leave a hand print on Sheilas side.The Stager would need to be down on their knees beside her head/shoulder,leanind down over her body to make a print at that angle.It would be a strange awkward position to adopt to stage manage the body I would have thought,Of course,yourself and others have grave concerns that the bodies may have been moved about.Obviously Junes body is such a mess,she could quite easily have been moved and no one would be any the wiser.Sheila,however ,with fewer wounds ,would not have been so easy to move very far without being noticed,I would think.BUT,who knows? Anyway,if the print is from Sheilas own hand,there must have been a considerable amount of blood on her palm,so.as you say Mike,things just dont add up according to the official claims.

[mike tesko]

Hi Mike,hope your well.Yes the hand print makes little sense.The question,as you say,is whether the  print was made by Sheilas own hand or someone elses? Both explainations cause problems,as you say.If Sheila made the print with blood from her own wounds,why does her hand look so clean? You think it is a print made by the thumb/forefinger area of her hand,I dont see this pattern.The print looks more like three fingers,possibly with the thumb tucked in below causing the dark area between the two fingers closest together.But as you say Mike,the cops denied that the inside of her hand was bloodied.So,could it be someone elses hand print? Well,this too causes problems,it is a strange place for anyone else to leave a hand print.Lets say it was made by either Nev/June,that would mean they would have needed to be standing up and BEHIND Sheila,because the print is facing forward and down.It would also have been made with their right hand.If Nev/June were facing Sheila,the print would be facing towards her back and made by the left hand.Make any sense? So,could Nev/June been standing behind Sheila making a grab at her? Ismail has us believing that Sheilas nightdress was rucked up front,back and sideways to varying degrees,so if the print was made before hand ,could the position of the print be distorted as it were,And once the dress was straightened out,might the print be at an entirely different angle,maybe facing backwards?Who knows,the dress is gone forever,criminal,totally criminal! Now you mention that the print may have been made by someone stage managing the body.Well the stager,as it were,would have needed to be in a strange position to leave a hand print on Sheilas side.The Stager would need to be down on their knees beside her head/shoulder,leanind down over her body to make a print at that angle.It would be a strange awkward position to adopt to stage manage the body I would have thought,Of course,yourself and others have grave concerns that the bodies may have been moved about.Obviously Junes body is such a mess,she could quite easily have been moved and no one would be any the wiser.Sheila,however ,with fewer wounds ,would not have been so easy to move very far without being noticed,I would think.BUT,who knows? Anyway,if the print is from Sheilas own hand,there must have been a considerable amount of blood on her palm,so.as you say Mike,things just dont add up according to the official claims.

Hi 'snow66', thanks for  'your responses'!

The fact that such a bloodstain appears in a concealed position was not addressed by police, the prosecution, or and any 'Bamber' is guilty, 'supporter'. Whatever the circumstances surrounds 'the creation of this' / 'that bloodstain' in 'that' / 'this' location, was something which 'the jury', and 'Jeremys legal team' were entitled to know about, and question 'its manisfestation'..

I was 'somewhat intrigued' by 'your assertion' that 'if the bloodstained mark' ( under consideration) was 'genuinely made by a bloodstained hand' or 'finger prints', that 'the person who was responsible for the birth of that bloodstain' on 'the front part of 'Sheilas nightdress', then surely, this 'might impact' upon whether or not 'Jeremy' was / 'is' the 'perpetrator' and 'that he must have been' responsible for 'the five deaths' under 'review'!

[snow66!]

Hi 'snow66', thanks for  'your responses'!

The fact that such a bloodstain appears in a concealed position was not addressed by police, the prosecution, or and any 'Bamber' is guilty, 'supporter'. Whatever the circumstances surrounds 'the creation of this' / 'that bloodstain' in 'that' / 'this' location, was something which 'the jury', and 'Jeremys legal team' were entitled to know about, and question 'its manisfestation'..

I was 'somewhat intrigued' by 'your assertion' that 'if the bloodstained mark' ( under consideration) was 'genuinely made by a bloodstained hand' or 'finger prints', that 'the person who was responsible for the birth of that bloodstain' on 'the front part of 'Sheilas nightdress', then surely, this 'might impact' upon whether or not 'Jeremy' was / 'is' the 'perpetrator' and 'that he must have been' responsible for 'the five deaths' under 'review'!

I believe there may be something else to consider regarding Ismails evidence Mike.He stated that Sheila slipped down after the first shot and her dress was rucked up,this must be when she touched her neck and brought it down and caused the hand print.He then said that the second shot was instantly fatal,fair enough,so at that stage sheila is dead with her dress rucked up and the hand print made.Then he says someone pulls Sheilas legs,he some how knows this by the blood staining.Then he says that Sheilas dress is pulled back down,but if the dress was pulled down at this stage and the creases/wrinkles were straightened out,wouldn't this stretch and distort the hand print?

[snow66!]

In fact,when you think more about Ismails evidence,the hand print should really be further down Sheilas body.Ismail said that Sheilas body would move within her dress,and that the dress would basically stay put as she slipped down because of the friction between the dress and the carpet.Therefore,by the time Sheila slipped from a sitting position to being almost flat ,the bottom of her dress must have been well up her body.So,once Sheila touched her neck and brought her bloodied hand back down,shouldn't she have been touching the bottom hem of her dress almost,hence,if the dress was then pulled down the stain should have been much further down? Yet the stain is still further up than her hand.

[snow66!]

And another thing,as I have already said,the maximum distance that Sheila could have been pulled is about three inches.That is about the distance that Sheilas left shoulder is away from the bedside cabinet.But,I am  sure if you experiment and sit with your back against a cabinet or even just a wall,then gradually slip your body down till it is flat,you will find that your shoulders are indeed clear of the cabinet or wall by the length of your head.They have to be! That is,further than Sheilas are from the cabinet,That is because Sheila was partially lying on her right side when she was shot,as stated by Vanezis,hence,when Sheila slipped down after the first shot,by the time her head was at the bottom of the cabinet it hadfallen to the side onto the floor.That is why her shoulder is so near to the cabinet.If she was against a wall and slipped down flat,as I have said,the top of her head would be against the wall,and her shoulders would be nine or ten inches away from the wall.This is conclusive proof that Sheilas legs COULD NOT have been pulled,impossible.Ismail said Sheila slipped down till she was almost flat with her head resting against the cabinet,if this was the case,once Sheila WAS pulled flat her shoulders would be at least the depth of her head,nine or ten inches AT LEAST.Yet her left shoulder is only three or four inches clear of the cabinet,irrefutable proof that her head fell to the side before she slipped right down. If you experiment,I am sure you will agree.NO ONE pulled Sheila away from the bedside cabinet,ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE.Ismail is wrong.

[lookout]

It would seem that someone was pulling our legs !

[mike tesko]

I believe there may be something else to consider regarding Ismails evidence Mike.He stated that Sheila slipped down after the first shot and her dress was rucked up,this must be when she touched her neck and brought it down and caused the hand print.He then said that the second shot was instantly fatal,fair enough,so at that stage sheila is dead with her dress rucked up and the hand print made. [there is another possibility, which could help to explain why the bloodied hand / finger mark on her night dress, and the double bloodied finger marks in the region of one of the bullet entry wounds on her neck was infact made by 'Sheila', herself. That being that these / those Bloodstains were made after she received them after the initial shot downstairs and her recovery to enable her to flee from the kitchen downstairs, to the main bedroom upstairs, where she sustained 2nd shot which was an instantly fatal shot with no opportunity for 'Sheila' to have performed any action involving her hand and fingers on her neck and the nightdress!Then he says that Sheilas dress is pulled back down, [ pulled down by whom? Why? and When]? but if the dress was pulled down at this stage and the creases/wrinkles were straightened out,wouldn't this stretch and distort the hand print? [the only distortion that I can see in the bloodied hand / fingermark on the nightdress is a line which appears to indicate that this area my have been creased up when the bloodied hand / fingerprint was made]..

please note that coments  in blue, inserted into your post are my responses to issues you are rasing (mike)

[Adam]

It is good that Snow66! has managed to correct expert forensic scientist Martyn Ismail. Thirty six years later.

Next he will be solving the how to put gaps between paragraphs mystery.

[snow66!]

please note that coments  in blue, inserted into your post are my responses to issues you are rasing (mike)

Thank you Mike

[snow66!]

It is good that Snow66! has managed to correct expert forensic scientist Martyn Ismail. Thirty six years later.

Next he will be solving the how to put gaps between paragraphs mystery.

Hi Adam,that may prove more difficult unfortunately.

[snow66!]

It would seem that someone was pulling our legs !

I think so Lookout,what do you think?

[mike tesko]

I discount the possibility that the bloodied hand / fingermark on the front lower part of 'Sheilas' nightdress, could have been made after the first shot had been inflicted ( image of post attached) because cops (SOCO) photographed her body laid out on top of the bed upstairs in the y blood lea,ing out of that solitarymain bedroom, at a time 'when' there was only a solitary  bullet entry wound visible on her neck, and there was no evidence at all of any blood trailing from the corner of her mouth!