you should all know this?

[mertol22]

perhaps its time to raise the debate to a new level, if i had been one of the undertakers that morning  removing the deceased my 1st thoughts would have been location of deceased , ease of access, as to the length of time the family had been dead though not my concern the smell in the rooms i promise you i would have had a good idea, fresh blood has its own smell, factors would have played a part as to the condition of the deceased , heating on ect, no windows open, contained heat, Sheila died later than the rest of the family, even make up smells if a body is still warm.

eeew, how long was you an undertaker mertol?  was the job in yorks?

18 years  lined my 1st coffin at 15 on weeks work expierience  from school, carried a coffin on a chrome trolley at local crematorium at 15 borrowed then my dads pub suit.

[andrea]

i saw a lot of dead people when i was senior in a rehab and nursing home, we had to sit with the bodies sometimes until family arrived or the undertakers, we also had to wash them ready for families to view.

a bit freaky sometimes, i never had to see children thankfully, i couldnt have coped with that.

[mertol22]

Here is my BTEC pass of 97, if i had been there at WHF that morning much i would have known about the time of the deaths.

[mertol22]

i saw a lot of dead people when i was senior in a rehab and nursing home, we had to sit with the bodies sometimes until family arrived or the undertakers, we also had to wash them ready for families to view.

a bit freaky sometimes, i never had to see children thankfully, i couldnt have coped with that.

Andrea i have dressed children under 5 in clothes believe me it tests your soul to the limits.

[andrea]

those edexcel certs have changed!! mine are totally different

[mertol22]

i still have my work books , i dont think they would talk now but the undertakers on that morning should still remember quite well should they still be around

[mike tesko]

Mike is an inteligent man. If he was being lied to he would smell it a mile off and not post it on the forum. I repeat. I believe this is a tactic to draw information from unknown policemen who Mike believes are witholding information. Its a 'fishing trip'.

This is from only 3 pages back on this forum....

"There was absolutely no doubt at all in the minds of senior police officers who attended the scene - that Sheila had fired the rifle which killed the others, and herself. But now I can reveal for the first time in 26 years the evidence the police obtained, and how this evidence, verified Sheila`s involvement and the role she played in the shootings. At long last the myth that Sheila could not have fired the rifle can now be exposed as nothing but a damning lie, since she did fire the rifle, its 100% certain that she didi..."

So, that thread is out the window then......

If somebody threw it out of the window, somebody needs to bring it back inside for further debate since Sheila did handle and use that rifle. What's more, police photographed the position of her right hand on strategic locations upon the rifle that it would almost certainly have become coated in the sooty FDR and be contaminated with significantly higher levels of LEAD DEPOSITS than examination of the  hand swabs produced, no matter who had fired the gun, so as you can see, hand swab evidence was worthless and meaningless...

[vidvic]

Just because the hand swab results don't match your theory, does not make them worthless. In fact they are compelling as the lab were concerned with contamination. If the result had been positive then indeed they would be worthless, but as they were negative, provided very powerful evidence that Sheila did not fire any rifle.

Maybe you could answer my question?

How is it possible for Sheila to be presumed dead on the kitchen floor, make her way to the bedroom, shoot herself, be presumed dead again, only to be shot again sometime later?

[chochokeira]

Smiffy,

I don't believe a word of this whole 'prosecution witness' story from Mike.

And please, show me something of 'substance' to prove that any of this story is anything more than a figment of Mike's imagination.

Vidvic! You should be ashamed of yourself. There was I, thinking you were one of the good guys among the antis, like Shona, and you go and do a 'rest my case' Hartley style personal attack on Mike. What grounds do you have for the above character assassination? None - or you would have detailed these. So what does your objection boil down to - the gut feeling of an anti who is intent on keeping Jeremy in prison at all costs? One who isn't too fussed whether Jeremy is guilty or not as long as he stays in the slammer?

Keira. If I don't believe what Mike is posting, then I have every right to say so. As I said further in the thread, Mike sometimes posts theories for discussion.

On any other forum, a member who suggests the forum owner is a liar would be banned. It's solely thanks to Mike's exemplary tolerance that you are not in that position, Vidvic. I don't believe you remain on here for your knowledge of the family, as you know precious little.

[grahameb]

Just because the hand swab results don't match your theory, does not make them worthless. In fact they are compelling as the lab were concerned with contamination. If the result had been positive then indeed they would be worthless, but as they were negative, provided very powerful evidence that Sheila did not fire any rifle.

Maybe you could answer my question?

How is it possible for Sheila to be presumed dead on the kitchen floor, make her way to the bedroom, shoot herself, be presumed dead again, only to be shot again sometime later?

See what Hartley means by gullible? Someone who never ever questions the anti Bamber side. You would do well to question your own beliefs here Vic. For there may be a chance that Mike is right and his contact is genuine whatever theories or doubts that we ourselves may have. Remember good investigation is to question all sides of an argument. Your spectrum is too narrow.

[chochokeira]

i still have my work books , i dont think they would talk now but the undertakers on that morning should still remember quite well should they still be around

Eeeeeeeeeeeeek!

[vidvic]

Keira. Is that not a personal attack?

I suspect that Mike has not banned me because he understands the English language.

As I have said on at least two occasions, Mike isn't fibbing, it's a tactic.

Which bit of this post do you not understand?

[Roch]

Keira. Is that not a personal attack?

I suspect that Mike has not banned me because he understands the English language.

As I have said on at least two occasions, Mike isn't fibbing, it's a tactic.

Which bit of this post do you not understand?

Vic can I please ask your opinion on this:

How would it work as a tactic (to draw out former officers etc) if there was no truth in it?  They would just read it and be baffled surely? 

[smiffy]

(Z) says it was not until after second shot went off accidentally and caused the fatal shot under the chin, that police at the scene realized that shiela had not been dead after all, but by that stage Dr Craig had left the scene, and (Z) says this was when another doctor named HARRIS was requested to attend the scene and he verified Sheila as being dead for a second time...

The surname HARRIS crops up a lot and can be confusing in this case.
We have DCS Harris......Divisional Chief Superintendant
We also have DCI Harris..... Detective Chief Inspector (or is it divisional)....though the radio log has him down as Div DCI Harris.

Seems odd that DCI Harris gives an ETA to arrive at Chelmsford (CD)at 8.15 am...
and then there is a message for a landline call to be made between ACC Simpson and DCI Harris AT 8.20am.

[vidvic]

Keira. Is that not a personal attack?

I suspect that Mike has not banned me because he understands the English language.

As I have said on at least two occasions, Mike isn't fibbing, it's a tactic.

Which bit of this post do you not understand?

Vic can I please ask your opinion on this:

How would it work as a tactic (to draw out former officers etc) if there was no truth in it?  They would just read it and be baffled surely?

Sure Roch, I'll do my best.

Mike believes that various police officers have things to hide from that morning.
Mike believes that various ex police officers read the forum.
If Mike can make these officers believe that one of them is about to go public with new information then just maybe they might blink and come forward themselves....
That's what I believe he has just tried.
That is why I believe it's a tactic, not a lie.
That is why I believe it to be complete and utter horlicks......