More On the 2021 CCRC Submission

[Bubo bubo]

You seem to be pinning a lot of hopes on the shoulder cut not being a cut. That mark was discovered long after anything previously discussed on here. All marks should viewed distinctly as well as being considered collectively or in tandem. Therefore, a cut on her shoulder that isn't a cut, does not impact on other marks actually being a cut. I hope this makes sense.

Re her wrist, if we look at your take on things, there needs to be a source for the runs that you see as gravitational in one direction. However, as can be seen by looking closely, there is no such source. You can see her skin, where you should see a blood source. You've got the runs the wrong way round.

My feeling on the blood trails is that it does not need a source on the arm. I believe these were caused during some of the many possible movements to her body., There was an accumulation of blood in her neck some of which (particularly near the two neck wounds) had started to congeal. When moving SC this plugged blood ejected on to her arm began to liquify and formed trail. It is possible that other wounds from broken skin on her arms also created trails

[Roch]

Bill is alleging its a cut and blood flowing out of it via gravity where she lay. Thus he needs to explain how the alleged cuts on her wrist is not flowing in the same direction while Sheila is in the same position.

The source of blood is from her neck wounds as has been established. But being a conspirartard you don't have the critcial thinking ability to understand how.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.3790

You're assuming that Sheila never lay on her back prior to her death position.

Good luck in physically demonstrating how blood from her non fatal neck wound was transferred to the underside of her wrist (with the associated blood streams then magically freezing in a fixed clotted position). It's quite laughable that you're saying it's been established, when you yourself have tried to come up with alternative sources.

Where exactly has it been established?

[Roch]

My feeling on the blood trails is that it does not need a source on the arm. I believe these were caused during some of the many possible movements to her body., There was an accumulation of blood in her neck some of which (particularly near the two neck wounds) had started to congeal. When moving SC this plugged blood ejected on to her arm began to liquify and formed trail. It is possible that other wounds from broken skin on her arms also created trails

It's an interesting proposition Bubo. I always try and see how a theory is demonstrable. For example is it possible to mimic such actions.

[David1819]

You're assuming that Sheila never lay on her back prior to her death position.

Good luck in physically demonstrating how blood from her non fatal neck wound was transferred to the underside of her wrist (with the associated blood streams then magically freezing in a fixed clotted position). It's quite laughable that you're saying it's been established, when you yourself have tried to come up with alternative sources.

Where exactly has it been established?

For the 500th time - Knight, Vanezis and Mcdonnel have all stated the blood on her arm came from her neck wound. The same way the blood ended up running down her dress coinciding with her arm.





You are too emotionally invested in this conspiracy theory to think clearly. Don't you ever stop and wonder why its only you and Bill that believe this and nobody else?

[Roch]

For the 500th time - Knight, Vanezis and Mcdonnel have all stated the blood on her arm came from her neck wound. The same way the blood ended up running down her dress coinciding with her arm.





You are too emotionally invested in this conspiracy theory to think clearly. Don't you ever stop and wonder why its only you and Bill that believe this and nobody else?

I have not read where Knight and McDonnell have said the marks on Sheila's wrist were from her neck wound. I have not even read anything concrete from Vanezis explaining such. Personally I believe it's nonsensical and it is blatantly obvious that there is no source connecting to the underside of her wrist that could have caused those streams and clots. I advise you to examine the clearer images provided to you on here more carefully.

The idea that only Bill believes in the wounds is farcical. Furthermore it is not only Sheila who has a plethora of non disclosed wounds, but also Nevill and June.

[Rob_]

For the 500th time - Knight, Vanezis and Mcdonnel have all stated the blood on her arm came from her neck wound. The same way the blood ended up running down her dress coinciding with her arm.


You are too emotionally invested in this conspiracy theory to think clearly. Don't you ever stop and wonder why its only you and Bill that believe this and nobody else?

Actually David I am struggling in how the blood on Sheila's arm could have come from her neck wound?

If this were the case would their not be blood all over the front of Sheila's nightdress and on the carpet beside her?

[snow66!]

Surely to God a controlled experiment could be carried out to prove things.

All you need to do is attach a tube with a valve on it to a volunteers neck,then instruct them to carry out the accepted series of events concerning Sheilas death.

Someone would open the valve and let the artificial blood[Or real blood for that matter]flow at the precise time the shots are re-enacted.

If the blood ends up in a similar fashion on the volunteers right arm,so be it.If the experiment does not produce this with repeated attempts and amounts of blood flow,then it would be assumed the blood was present from other wounds prior to Sheila being shot.

Possible?

[Bubo bubo]

Actually David I am struggling in how the blood on Sheila's arm could have come from her neck wound?

If this were the case would their not be blood all over the front of Sheila's nightdress and on the carpet beside her?

Not necessarily. Imagine Sheila sitting/lying against the bedside table, her arm is at almost 45 degrees with her hand on her lap. As they reposition her air in her lungs causes pressure, which in turn forces its way up her windpipe. and the point of least resistance (neck wounds) spout of a few spots of blood which drop onto her arm which is itself repositioned for the crime scene photos.

[David1819]

Actually David I am struggling in how the blood on Sheila's arm could have come from her neck wound?

If this were the case would their not be blood all over the front of Sheila's nightdress and on the carpet beside her?

The shots to Sheila were inflicted to the left side of her neck, not central. Hence you have blood running down the left of her night dress and her left arm

[Roch]

Not necessarily. Imagine Sheila sitting/lying against the bedside table, her arm is at almost 45 degrees with her hand on her lap. As they reposition her air in her lungs causes pressure, which in turn forces its way up her windpipe. and the point of least resistance (neck wounds) spout of a few spots of blood which drop onto her arm which is itself repositioned for the crime scene photos.

If you look at the beginning of the possible spurt deposit sites, they are feint (or at least where they merge is feint). In order for streams to form clots, there would have to be sufficient blood flow travelling along the steams to the clot points. 

[David1819]

If you look at the beginning of the possible spurt deposit sites, they are feint (or at least where they merge is feint). In order for streams to form clots, there would have to be sufficient blood flow travelling along the steams to the clot points.

That photo has been manipulated to make the streaks seem a lot fainter than they really are. 

[Cambridgecutie]

Says she who wanted to hire DMS QC to represent Jeremy because she finds his attractive and impressed by his Skiing credentials.

Says he who is impressed by MT.  This is the KC that explained away the lack of blood on the kitchen phone by a police officer replacing and removing the handset. 

Says she who believes the same pathologists failed to notice surgical marks on Nevills back and mistook them all for something entirely different. Despite noticing the surgical marks on Sheila's breasts and Nevills medial records being in the case files.

I have no idea whether or not Nevill's medi records were in the case files but even if they were what evidence exists that a) Dr Vanezis had access to them pre-trial and b) that they included Nevill's injuries sustained during WW2?  I have never asserted the marks on Nevill's back were as a result of the surgery he underwent connected to injuries sustained during WW2.  I simply put if forward as a possible explanation.  Dr Vanezis was unable to conclude the marks were burns and sustained during the murders.
Prof Knight for the defence did not think they were burns.  Therefore how can this aspect of the case assist Bamber with the CCRC/CoA since it could not have been something the jury relied upon since there was no expert evidence asserting the marks were burns and sustained during the murders?  The prosecution relied upon the following at trial nothing whatsoever about burn marks.

151. The prosecution relied upon the following areas of evidence:

i) The appellant's expressed dislike of his family;

ii) His speaking of his plans to kill his family and thereafter his confessions to his girlfriend, Julie Mugford;

iii) The finding of his mother's bicycle at Goldhanger;

iv) The appellant's admitted ability to effect covert entry into and exit from the farmhouse and the finding of the hacksaw blade outside the bathroom window. His claim to have entered the house in that way after the first arrest was an attempt to explain these findings;

v) Because on the facts of the case it could only have been the appellant or Sheila Caffell who carried out the killings, the factors below proved they were not the responsibility of the appellant's sister:

a) Although seriously mentally ill, there had been no indication of any deterioration in her mental health in the days before the killings. Neither had she expressed any recent suicidal thoughts and the expert evidence was that she would not have harmed her children or her father;

b) Save for the appellant nobody had seen her use a gun and she had no interest in them. Sheila Caffell also had very poor co-ordination and would not have been capable of loading and operating the rifle nor would she have had the required knowledge to do so;

c) She would not have been able physically to have overcome her father (who was fit, strong and 6' 4" tall) during the struggle which undoubtedly took place before his death in the kitchen;

d) Her hands and feet were clean. They were not blood stained and neither was there any sugar upon them;

e) Hand swabs from her body did not reveal the levels of lead to be expected in somebody who must have re-loaded the magazine of the gun on at least two occasions; and

f) Her clothing was relatively clean and she was not injured in the way that might be expected of somebody involved in a struggle. Her long fingernails were still intact and undamaged.

vi) The sound moderator had on any view been attached to the rifle during the fight with Nevill Bamber in the kitchen. But if Sheila Caffell had committed suicide it must have been removed before she shot herself. The following aspects of the evidence established it was still in place on the gun when the appellant's sister was murdered:

a) The blood grouping analysis proved (on the particular facts of the case) that Sheila Caffell's blood was inside the moderator; and

b) Had the appellant's sister murdered the other members of her family with the moderator attached to the gun and then discovered she could not reach the trigger to kill herself, the moderator would have been found next to her body. There would have been no reason for her to have removed it and returned it to the gun cupboard before going back upstairs to commit suicide in her parents' room.

vii) The appellant's account of the telephone call from his father could be proved to be false for the following reasons:

a) His father was too badly injured to have spoken to anybody;

b) The telephone in the kitchen was not obviously blood stained;

c) As a matter of common sense, Nevill Bamber would have called the police before the appellant;

d) Had the appellant really received such a call, he would have immediately made a 999 call, alerted the farm workers who lived close to the farmhouse and then driven at speed to his parents home; and

e) Instead he had spoken to Julie Mugford before calling the police. When he subsequently contacted the Police, it was not by way of the emergency system.

viii) He stood to inherit considerable sums of money.

[Cambridgecutie]

My feeling on the blood trails is that it does not need a source on the arm. I believe these were caused during some of the many possible movements to her body., There was an accumulation of blood in her neck some of which (particularly near the two neck wounds) had started to congeal. When moving SC this plugged blood ejected on to her arm began to liquify and formed trail. It is possible that other wounds from broken skin on her arms also created trails

I agree.  There's no firm evidence as to precisely when Sheila was moved, partially and fully, and when soc images were taken.  Therefore pooled blood, internally and externally, could have spilled post death pre soc images.  In any event the CoA has already made it clear that blood stain analysis was available at the time of the trial, albeit in its infancy, therefore its not possible to use it now.

519. Having studied with care the statement of Mr Ismail, we concluded that this was expert evidence capable of belief. Indeed if it had been given and if cross-examination had not revealed flaws in it (which we consider unlikely bearing in mind that there was no application to call any expert evidence to contradict it), had we been on a jury hearing such evidence we might well have been very impressed by it. That evidence in itself could have led to a conclusion of guilt quite apart from the many other matters relied upon by the prosecution at trial. However, we were not satisfied that evidence of this kind was not available at the date of trial if the prosecution had sought to explore these matters and more importantly we thought that Mr Turner was right in his submission that it was very difficult to gauge with sufficient certainty the reaction of a jury to it particularly when we could not judge it against all the related evidence in the trial, which we had not heard.

520. Our conclusion was that we should not therefore admit the evidence and we have had no regard to it in reaching our conclusion. It can, however, be said about it that if it had been called at trial, it may well have represented yet another formidable string to the prosecution's bow in a case where even without any regard to that evidence, it has to be said that the prosecution were able to put forward a very strong case pointing to guilt.

[David1819]

Says he who is impressed by MT. 

Where have I said that? I have only studied one case that he has dealt with (this one). So I cannot really pass judgment on the guys 40 year legal career by looking at 3 weeks of work.

This is the KC that explained away the lack of blood on the kitchen phone by a police officer replacing and removing the handset. 

No, it was Ed Lawson that said that. I have already pointed this out to you in the past,



Going over the marks on Nevills back yet again is not going to change my view on them. Buy all means go and look for surgical marks that resemble the marks on Nevil. You wont find any because surgical scars don't look anything like that.

[Cambridgecutie]

Where have I said that? I have only studied one case that he has dealt with (this one). So I cannot really pass judgment on the guys 40 year legal career by looking at 3 weeks of work.

No, it was Ed Lawson that said that. I have already pointed this out to you in the past,

Where does EL say anything about blood being removed from handset as a result of anyone interering with it?

Going over the marks on Nevills back yet again is not going to change my view on them. Buy all means go and look for surgical marks that resemble the marks on Nevil. You wont find any because surgical scars don't look anything like that.

Why on earth would I spend a minute of my time trying to establish what exactly caused the marks on Nevill's back?  Firstly at this stage it has no bearing on the case and secondly if two eminent pathologists were unable to conclude what they were why would someone like msyself have any idea?