Bullet entries are more consistent with Sheila being shot on two occasions...

[smiffy]

Wound to right side of neck did not occur as a result of a ricochet of a bullet that struck the aga, muzzle of weapoin was in a contact position at the time bullet PV/20 was fired - fired with a loss of, or reduced velocity...

Such as from a weapon with a bent barrel or damaged silencer attached..if what Mike contends is correct.

[Hartley]

The other relevant feature being that both wounds were/are contact, or close contact shots, where one of the bullets (PV/20) lost or had reduced velocity, with accompanying fragmentation, whilst the other (PV/19) did not..

Mike, please could you elaborate a little more on how you came to that conclusion, or where it is mentioned in a report?

Evidence exists which is in my possession to account for lost or reduced velocity and for why bullet PV20 fragmented, and why the other bullet (PV/19) did not...

Can you elaborate further as to what actual evidence? In my cynical world, it appears that this is just something to try and advance a theory that a ricochet occurred.

Basically as another expert has categorically stated that one shot was a contact shot and the other was from within three inches, I'm finding it extremely difficult to entertain the idea that you have solid concrete evidence that Malcolm Fletcher's findings are fabricated and you choose to publish this in the manner in which you have.

I think that if people really thought about it, the reason that one bullet was fragmented or badly damaged and the other wasn't, is for the same reasons that some of the bullets to other victims were fragmented/damaged and whole.


With regards to reduced velocity, the only sensible conclusion that I can arrive at is that you may also be trying to advance your theory that one of the shots was from a .22 air rifle, or perhaps a .22 bolt action Brno rifle with a damage barrel. If either of those is the case, then could we please see your evidence.

[smiffy]

Cliff posted;
I also think the autopsy was poorly conducted, and many things missed,for instance he never mentioned the necklace in his report, but it is clearly visible in the xray.

I believe the necklace was ommited from his report so as to not draw attention to it. This I believe was done deliberately as other problems exist in the autopsy reports/statements from him.
A focus on the necklace would show from the photographs that her body was moved some minutes after the fatal shot...most likely in the 15 to 30 minute range and in the moving of her body the necklace slid around her neck.

[smiffy]

The other relevant feature being that both wounds were/are contact, or close contact shots, where one of the bullets (PV/20) lost or had reduced velocity, with accompanying fragmentation, whilst the other (PV/19) did not..

Mike, please could you elaborate a little more on how you came to that conclusion, or where it is mentioned in a report?

Evidence exists which is in my possession to account for lost or reduced velocity and for why bullet PV20 fragmented, and why the other bullet (PV/19) did not...

Can you elaborate further as to what actual evidence? In my cynical world, it appears that this is just something to try and advance a theory that a ricochet occurred.

Basically as another expert has categorically stated that one shot was a contact shot and the other was from within three inches, I'm finding it extremely difficult to entertain the idea that you have solid concrete evidence that Malcolm Fletcher's findings are fabricated and you choose to publish this in the manner in which you have.

I think that if people really thought about it, the reason that one bullet was fragmented or badly damaged and the other wasn't, is for the same reasons that some of the bullets to other victims were fragmented/damaged and whole.


With regards to reduced velocity, the only sensible conclusion that I can arrive at is that you may also be trying to advance your theory that one of the shots was from a .22 air rifle, or perhaps a .22 bolt action Brno rifle with a damage barrel. If either of those is the case, then could we please see your evidence.

That so called "expert" did not note that both wounds had come into contact with each other. in my view as the so called expert missed such a vital point then in my view he either lied or is incompetent.
I do not rely on so called experts and I would advise many people to also question the crap they are prone to spout in courts and statements.

[mike tesko]

The other relevant feature being that both wounds were/are contact, or close contact shots, where one of the bullets (PV/20) lost or had reduced velocity, with accompanying fragmentation, whilst the other (PV/19) did not..

Mike, please could you elaborate a little more on how you came to that conclusion, or where it is mentioned in a report?

Evidence exists which is in my possession to account for lost or reduced velocity and for why bullet PV20 fragmented, and why the other bullet (PV/19) did not...

Can you elaborate further as to what actual evidence? In my cynical world, it appears that this is just something to try and advance a theory that a ricochet occurred.

Basically as another expert has categorically stated that one shot was a contact shot and the other was from within three inches, I'm finding it extremely difficult to entertain the idea that you have solid concrete evidence that Malcolm Fletcher's findings are fabricated and you choose to publish this in the manner in which you have.

I think that if people really thought about it, the reason that one bullet was fragmented or badly damaged and the other wasn't, is for the same reasons that some of the bullets to other victims were fragmented/damaged and whole.


With regards to reduced velocity, the only sensible conclusion that I can arrive at is that you may also be trying to advance your theory that one of the shots was from a .22 air rifle, or perhaps a .22 bolt action Brno rifle with a damage barrel. If either of those is the case, then could we please see your evidence.

Forget use of second rifle for a moment...

[Hartley]

Forget use of second rifle for a moment...

Sound moderator? I could guess all day long, but I'd get the feeling I'm just giving you ideas.

Why don't you just show us the evidence if you have it, after all it could surely only benefit your cause to do so.

[smiffy]

The other relevant feature being that both wounds were/are contact, or close contact shots, where one of the bullets (PV/20) lost or had reduced velocity, with accompanying fragmentation, whilst the other (PV/19) did not..

Mike, please could you elaborate a little more on how you came to that conclusion, or where it is mentioned in a report?

Evidence exists which is in my possession to account for lost or reduced velocity and for why bullet PV20 fragmented, and why the other bullet (PV/19) did not...

Can you elaborate further as to what actual evidence? In my cynical world, it appears that this is just something to try and advance a theory that a ricochet occurred.

Basically as another expert has categorically stated that one shot was a contact shot and the other was from within three inches, I'm finding it extremely difficult to entertain the idea that you have solid concrete evidence that Malcolm Fletcher's findings are fabricated and you choose to publish this in the manner in which you have.

I think that if people really thought about it, the reason that one bullet was fragmented or badly damaged and the other wasn't, is for the same reasons that some of the bullets to other victims were fragmented/damaged and whole.


With regards to reduced velocity, the only sensible conclusion that I can arrive at is that you may also be trying to advance your theory that one of the shots was from a .22 air rifle, or perhaps a .22 bolt action Brno rifle with a damage barrel. If either of those is the case, then could we please see your evidence.

Forget use of second rifle for a moment...

low powered .22 or similar size handgun and not a rifle would be lower velocity...

[Hartley]

Forget use of second rifle for a moment...

Sound moderator? I could guess all day long, but I'd get the feeling I'm just giving you ideas.

Why don't you just show us the evidence if you have it, after all it could surely only benefit your cause to do so.

Particularly bearing in mind that you have previously, and quite forcibly attempted to persuade me that a high powered centrefire .237 Ruger Mini 14 rifle, issued to police officers was responsible for one of the wounds.

[boheme]

Sparkfilms earlier stated that the supposed hitman had said that the reson there were 2 shots was that Sheila was laid in a prone position for the execution but she moved therefore it required a second shot to kill her - this seems a feasible explanation to me.

[smiffy]

Sparkfilms earlier stated that the supposed hitman had said that the reson there were 2 shots was that Sheila was laid in a prone position for the execution but she moved therefore it required a second shot to kill her - this seems a feasible explanation to me.

as long as you ignore the evidence that contradicts it...why not leave it at one shot.....plenty of time for Sheila to die wasnt there...so no need for another.
oh the hitman is useless....thats why he put a silencer in the gun cupboard...but he is so good he enters and leaves without a trace...
cloud cuckoo land in my view..
he also goes round moving bullet cases about for no good reason etc etc etc
sparkfilms fantasy productions....not to be treated seriously

[boheme]

Hi Smiffy, I thought you believed that Sheila shot herself in the kitchen and then went upstairs - if that is true then 1 shot clearly did not kill her, the silencer was probably planted later by the family and he enters thanks to inside help from JB.....

[grahameb]

Sparkfilms earlier stated that the supposed hitman had said that the reson there were 2 shots was that Sheila was laid in a prone position for the execution but she moved therefore it required a second shot to kill her - this seems a feasible explanation to me.

But that would spoil the illusion that she killed herself if that was what the "hit man" was trying to give the impression of?

[mike tesko]

I have the evidence to prove silencer was not fitted to rife that fired bullet PV/19, and that Essex police knew silencer was not fitted to gun that fired bullet (PV/19) which killed her...

Same configured weapon could not fired bullets, PV/20 and PV/19, Because one weapon caused a loss or reduction in velocity and caused one of the bullets to fragment, whilst the other did not...

[Hartley]

I have the evidence to prove silencer was not fitted to rife that fired bullet PV/19, and that Essex police knew silencer was not fitted to gun that fired bullet (PV/19) which killed her...

Same configured weapon could not fired bullets, PV/20 and PV/19, Because one weapon caused a loss or reduction in velocity and caused one of the bullets to fragment, whilst the other did not...

Let's see it then please.

[boheme]

Or the killer had an unusual weapon with 2 different barrels - such as the one handed to the police after the event where the person would not divulge where he got it.......