Essex police found evidence that Sheila fired rifle (SC/688/85)

[chochokeira]

With regard to the negatives, and for that matter, ANY negatives that are quite old - does the condition deteriorate over time?

Now thats a good point, nobody thought of that, well done - I suppose KODAK MAN could answer that if it became an issue?

Negatives from 1985 should produce very clear images. Some members may recall that I have a large archive of old photographs. I've printed copies of many old negatives over the years and I'm usually stunned by the clarity of the photographs that can be obtained from even ancient negatives.

I was recently given some negatives of photographs taken during 1950. I was told that these had been badly abused, just shoved in a drawer loose, without even an envelope to protect them, clothes pegs and all manner of things had been crammed on top of them. They were terribly scratched. Yet they printed out as the loveliest photographs, with very little fading of the images, although there obviously was some damage due to scratches.

I also have some glass, colour and black and white, photographic and magic lantern slides that are over a hundred years old. Some have been kept wrapped and well stored in boxes, others have been very carelessly stored without wrappings. They all print images of astonishing clarity.

I have at least a thousand, terribly faded old photographs, most of which are 100 to 150 years old. Using modern photographic Restoration programs, all of these have produced amazingly clear photographs.

Some of these photos are so badly faded that no image whatsover can be seen on the original photograph.

That's very interesting Keira. I remember the old glass photographic plates. The chemist up the road used to split a box for me. Not sure if you can still buy them though.

The glass plates were before my time, though I've plenty of antique versions. You can probably still buy these from boot sales.

[mike tesko]

Nope, now they are your words not mine.

You started this thread with the promise of a revelation, that hasn't happened, you are relying on the images in this thread, no two ways about it, and they are inconclusive at best and show no such thing at worst. For you to now say that the orignal were clearer and showed what you say is true just doesn't wash with me, you haven't mentioned it before and you have no more proof now than you did back in 2004, adding that since that time you have put together all manner of different theories, some plausible but many riculous in the extreme, yet you never mentioned this one in all that time.

You have even argued that Sheila washed herself, a theory completely incompatible with the revelation theory in this thread.

My opinion is that you are making it up to try and mislead people, although I will give a full written apology if you prove that not to be the case.

Why on Earth you think I would be worried is beyond me.

You are really stupid, how do you think I took a copy of the picture I had possession of? Stop being a dimwit. Of course there was an original, that I copied, stop trying to be all intellectual by saying I never mentioned an original before, I have mentioned the originals before, not only in this thread but other threads as well, check out your facts before you open your gob...

Full of insults again. 

That is not what I said, I said that you have not brought up this theory before, as per your own words at the start of this thread, if the original image were so clear then you would have brought this up before today, but you have not.

You can run around opening your 'gob' calling me stupid or a dimwit if you want but it doesn't really do anything, the fact of the matter is, you have tried to put something across as 100% proof based on your interpretation of a photograph. Quite clearly that is not the case and we have been here before.

We've had the whole sawdust in the scullery thing which led to you saying that Sheilas arm was also visible in another picture, neither turned out to be truthful or rather your interpretation was incorrect. We've also recently had your interpretaion of a lack of bullet/casings around Junes body, where as in reality the bullet and casing in that photo is exactly where it should be. Another one dates back to the Sleuthing for Justice days where you tried to suggest two bullet cases were visible in a photo of the scullery, but you have since admitted that you made that up playing .

So basically your track record of interpreting photographs isn't the best and I really do believe that this nothing more than you trying to trick people, as you have tried and admitted to before (bullet casings in scullery), although I can't for the life of me understand what it is that you would hope to achieve by doing so.

So yes, we'll wait until the CCRC verdict comes in either this time or next, there's not much point in arguing it further without evidence.

I like your interpretation of grainy sunlight...

Again, your interpretation of photographs is very odd indeed, its ok for you to rely on the quality of photographs when it suits your purpose, you are very selective when it comes to anything, so long as it doesn't show Sheila was guilty, and it makes Jeremy guilty. Anyway, you wait and see like you say, and another thing I can name the tile of my threads what I like, and I can introduce information and evidence at any stage without requiring your permission, so stop trying to0 dictate to me how I post. You do what you do best and that is disagree with anything anybody says without the slightest evidence for doing so...

Sheila handled and fired the gun, and she reloaded bullets into it, and the residue that was photographed on her hands proves and establishes this for a fact, as confirmed by photographic evidence which was concealed by the police so that the court and everybody else could be fooled into believing that Sheila's hands were spotlessly clean...

Pull the other one, its got bells on it...

[tonker]

It would appear that this image renders Mikes theory a pile of bollocks. A funny sort of soot that is red.

[mike tesko]

It would appear that this image renders Mikes theory a pile of bollocks. A funny sort of soot that is red.

There is some blood on that part of the hand, but this particular photograph is one of those which does not give a clear view of the residue from the lever. You will note that the shape and position of the hand and the angle from which this particular photograph was taken, that the poiice had already moved Sheila`s hand by this stage? This particular photograph is one of many which does not show a clear presence of residue and I could post other photographs which also do not show the residue which was on her hand. Yet there are other photo`s which do show the residue very clearly - so reference to this photograph alone does not mean or prove that what I have been saying about the significance of the residue is a load of bollocks, but what it does do, is show in the clearest possible terms imaginable, is that Sheila' handsa were not spotlessly clean as alleged by the prosecutions case, and its experts...

In this respect, the claims of the prosecution is and was a load of bollocks...

You should also wish to bear in mind that the resIdue contaminated hand was photographed resting on those bloodied marks on trhe nightdress before this photo' was taken, and that some additional contamination took place at this stage, and duruing that.  Process...

[mike tesko]

The other thing not to be overlooked is the fact that when Sheila manually operated the lever during the reloading stage, that she may have had some blood on her fingers at that point which contaminated the lever so that a mixture of blood and residue contaminated parts of her hand?  One thing that becomes overwhelmingly clear however, is that this photo' along with many others which were not disclosed, show evidence that Sheila's hands were clearly contaminated and yet the court was deceived into accepting her hands were spotlessly clean, supported by the dodgy hand swab evidence...

[Hartley]

Well there we go, I think someone has just been shown up to be talking horlicks. 

And Mike yes you can call a thread anything you like (and is not something I have critisised)  and no you don't need my permission, but that's not even close to being the point is it. 

The point is you have intentionally attempted to mislead and manipulate people. I'm not even sure why you bother, the only people who are taken in by this are those who already swoon at every word you say without question, you could tell them that sheep lay eggs and they'd be rolling their eyes and saying 'well yes Mike, of course we know that'.

Very odd

[grahameb]

With regard to the negatives, and for that matter, ANY negatives that are quite old - does the condition deteriorate over time?

Now thats a good point, nobody thought of that, well done - I suppose KODAK MAN could answer that if it became an issue?

Negatives from 1985 should produce very clear images. Some members may recall that I have a large archive of old photographs. I've printed copies of many old negatives over the years and I'm usually stunned by the clarity of the photographs that can be obtained from even ancient negatives.

I was recently given some negatives of photographs taken during 1950. I was told that these had been badly abused, just shoved in a drawer loose, without even an envelope to protect them, clothes pegs and all manner of things had been crammed on top of them. They were terribly scratched. Yet they printed out as the loveliest photographs, with very little fading of the images, although there obviously was some damage due to scratches.

I also have some glass, colour and black and white, photographic and magic lantern slides that are over a hundred years old. Some have been kept wrapped and well stored in boxes, others have been very carelessly stored without wrappings. They all print images of astonishing clarity.

I have at least a thousand, terribly faded old photographs, most of which are 100 to 150 years old. Using modern photographic Restoration programs, all of these have produced amazingly clear photographs.

Some of these photos are so badly faded that no image whatsover can be seen on the original photograph.

That's very interesting Keira. I remember the old glass photographic plates. The chemist up the road used to split a box for me. Not sure if you can still buy them though.

The glass plates were before my time, though I've plenty of antique versions. You can probably still buy these from boot sales.

Could probably make your own if you've got some silver nitrate. Byt the way there was a man in the 50's in America who started out going round all the photographers with a new device which he had invented which collected all the waste silver that was washed off these glass plates and very soon he became one of the biggest silver dealers in the states. Another bit of useless information brought to you by belton inc.

[grahameb]

It would appear that this image renders Mikes theory a pile of bollocks. A funny sort of soot that is red.

And it also proves that Sheila's hands were not spotless as stated by the prosecution.
Oh, and by the way I see that you have chosen to ignore my request to introdude yourself in the foyer before posting. Please do do before you choose to criticise someone again. Thank you.

[Hartley]

Yes it does Grahame, I wonder if somebody could refresh my memory as to where this 'spotlessly clean' comment comes from? I'll have a look for myself later if not.

I know the clean feet is taken out of context because the pathologist only refers to the tops of her feet being clean, although I haven't looked at this for a while so there may be other sources.

[Hartley]

Yes it does Grahame, I wonder if somebody could refresh my memory as to where this 'spotlessly clean' comment comes from? I'll have a look for myself later if not.

I know the clean feet is taken out of context because the pathologist only refers to the tops of her feet being clean, although I haven't looked at this for a while so there may be other sources.

The pathologists statement dated 30/9/85 specifically states that Sheilas palms and fingers were not contaminated with blood.

 http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,988.msg29919.html#msg29919

[Hartley]

Yes it does Grahame, I wonder if somebody could refresh my memory as to where this 'spotlessly clean' comment comes from? I'll have a look for myself later if not.

I know the clean feet is taken out of context because the pathologist only refers to the tops of her feet being clean, although I haven't looked at this for a while so there may be other sources.

The pathologists statement dated 30/9/85 specifically states that Sheilas palms and fingers were not contaminated with blood.

 http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,988.msg29919.html#msg29919

Woodcocks statement states that the soles of her feet were 'spotlessly clean' in his statement dated 20/09/85.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,609.msg13181.html#msg13181

I'm wondering if her hands never were actually described as spotlessly clean, although I must admit I thought I had read it somewhere, Mike mentions it many many times in other posts. 

[grahameb]

Yes it does Grahame, I wonder if somebody could refresh my memory as to where this 'spotlessly clean' comment comes from? I'll have a look for myself later if not.

I know the clean feet is taken out of context because the pathologist only refers to the tops of her feet being clean, although I haven't looked at this for a while so there may be other sources.

Thats a point. I can't remember where I read it tell you the truth. Probably someone elses comment. Just goes to show how many of us take other folk's comments as gospel.

[Hartley]

Yes it does Grahame, I wonder if somebody could refresh my memory as to where this 'spotlessly clean' comment comes from? I'll have a look for myself later if not.

I know the clean feet is taken out of context because the pathologist only refers to the tops of her feet being clean, although I haven't looked at this for a while so there may be other sources.

Thats a point. I can't remember where I read it tell you the truth. Probably someone elses comment. Just goes to show how many of us take other folk's comments as gospel.

Well it's about time people stopped doing that isn't it, if I utter a single word without supplying the source I get people queuing up to burn me at the stake, even I if I dare disagree with somebody I get comments like 'oh Hartley, you would say that wouldn't you', or 'I can't wait for Hartleys comments on this'. Along with being called a dimwit, an idiot or worse depending on who the insult is coming from.

Although it's hardly surprising given my views and that this is a Pro-Bamber site, I'm not whining, I actually find it somewhat amusing in my own weird way.

[mike tesko]

Yes it does Grahame, I wonder if somebody could refresh my memory as to where this 'spotlessly clean' comment comes from? I'll have a look for myself later if not.

I know the clean feet is taken out of context because the pathologist only refers to the tops of her feet being clean, although I haven't looked at this for a while so there may be other sources.

The pathologists statement dated 30/9/85 specifically states that Sheilas palms and fingers were not contaminated with blood.

 http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,988.msg29919.html#msg29919

DC Hammersley (soc) made a statement claiming to have taken hand swabs from Sheila at the scene, before body was taken to mortuary where pathologist viewed body and reported the condition and state of her hands, including her palms and fingers - so, are you now suggesting when the hand swabs were taken at the scene, that these so called swabs were not wiped over Sheila`s right hand palm, and the fingers of her right hand?

So...

If hand swabs were done correctly! Any residue and blood would be wiped off the palm and fingers, long before the pathologist even saw Sheila`s body...

So your point now is?

[Hartley]

Yes it does Grahame, I wonder if somebody could refresh my memory as to where this 'spotlessly clean' comment comes from? I'll have a look for myself later if not.

I know the clean feet is taken out of context because the pathologist only refers to the tops of her feet being clean, although I haven't looked at this for a while so there may be other sources.

The pathologists statement dated 30/9/85 specifically states that Sheilas palms and fingers were not contaminated with blood.

 http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,988.msg29919.html#msg29919

DC Hammersley (soc) made a statement claiming to have taken hand swabs from Sheila at the scene, before body was taken to mortuary where pathologist viewed body and reported the condition and state of her hands, including her palms and fingers - so, are you now suggesting when the hand swabs were taken at the scene, that these so called swabs were not wiped over Sheila`s right hand palm, and the fingers of her right hand?

So...

If hand swabs were done correctly! Any residue and blood would be wiped off the palm and fingers, long before the pathologist even saw Sheila`s body...

So your point now is?

Mike could your post make any less sense?

Hammersley statement dated 22/10/85
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,373.msg5090.html#msg5090

The relevant extract is below.

Stop trying to mislead people. Hand swabs were taken and tested for firearms residue, none was found.

Visual inspection of her hands by the pathologist stated that her fingers and palms were not contaminated by blood.