Discussion about Marks on Shiela in the locked thread.

[Hartley]

Mike posted:
What significant possession did another person try to wrestle from Sheila Caffell? It must have been something of worth, not in the respect of value, but with respect of a life or death objective...

It must have been either a struggle over possession and control of the gun or ammunition, or as the case may be, the telephone...

I touched on this earlier, basically there is no evidence that anything was wrestled from Sheilas hands, therefore it is somewhat futile to start guessing what such an item may be when there is nothing to suggest that there even was an item in the first place.

[grahameb]

I'm sorry Grahame but if you can show be a picture which shows Sheilas PALMS & FINGERTIPS, to be contaminated, a picture which would be worthy of submitting to the CCRC to prove your claim then please do so.

I was in fact referring to YOUR remarks that seem to go beyond what the report says. Of course neither of us can confirm or deny that her fingertips and palms (neither can the forensic report which you posted) were clean or bloodied?
In fact your forensic reporter seems at one point to contradict himself? First he says (from the photograph he claims he can deduce this) that her palms and fingers were clean and in the next paragraph he mentions fingerprints probably from Sheila being found on her nightdress?
I'm just wondering if her fingers and palms were perfectly clean, how could there be her hand prints on her nightdress? But he does of course add that it is not known if this photograph was taken before or after she was washed?

[Hartley]

What is also rather interesting is that the post mortem report notes for Sheila mentions what is described as a palm print on her night dress and that blood stains appear to have been transferred from her right hand.

Mr Vanezis also says that there was no blood on Sheilas right palm.

[Hartley]

Mike posted:

If Sheila`s fingers of her right hand were spotlessly clean, how did the bloodied finger mark impression get onto the front lower right part of her nightdress?

This is somewhat inaccurate, I'm not aware that the marks on Sheilas nightdress have ever been attributed to blood stained fingers, in all instances that I can recall it is described as hand or palm. I think that folds in the nightdress have when straitened out again given an incorrect impression of a finger mark.

[Hartley]

This may also be worth a read, Vanezis statement dated 12/11/86 - Report of PM then second statement following questions of council.

[Newbury1]

To save Hartley having to transfer the wording from the locked thread, and then posting on this thread , can the locked thread be UN-locked?

[Hartley]

Mike Posted:
Now...

I have received some information regarding the bloodied fingermarks on the front lower right hand side of Sheila's nightdress, which if true, has a direct bearing on the telephone call from Ralph to Jeremy from or at the scene...

&

Based on information received, I am satisfied that the gouge marks on the top part of Sheila's right hand, and the bloodied smeared fingermarks on her right forearm, are linked and associated with the bloodied fingerm$arks which are present on the front lower right of her nightdress, and that collectively, they represent evidence of a struggle between Sheila and another person, over control and possession of gun, ammunition, and phone...

The problem here is that everything described is inaccurate.

There are no gouge marks on Sheilas arms, there is no evidence of this, it is not accepted to be the case.

The blood stain of Sheilas arms are not described or proven to be finger marks, so again it is not accepted to be the case.

The blood stains on the night dress are not described or proven to be finger marks, so yet again this is not accepted to be the case.

So collectively, all of these misleading lies certainly do not represent evidence of a struggle between Sheila and another person, and as I established earlier in this thread, there certainly is no evidence that such a struggle would have been over control of an object simply because there is no evidence of that either.

[Hartley]

Here are links to threads containing Dr. Vanezis statements.

Statement Dated: 30/09/1985 - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,988.msg29919.html#msg29919

Statement Dated: 26/11/1985 - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,988.msg29919.html#msg29919

Statement Dated: 07/05/1986 - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,156.msg345.html#msg345

[grahameb]

To save Hartley having to transfer the wording from the locked thread, and then posting on this thread , can the locked thread be UN-locked?

I think Mike must have locked it for a reason and I'm not qualified to know that reason. He will have to unlock it himself I'm afraid?

[Hartley]

Here are links to threads containing Dr. Vanezis statements.

Statement Dated: 30/09/1985 - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,988.msg29919.html#msg29919

Statement Dated: 26/11/1985 - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,988.msg29919.html#msg29919

Statement Dated: 07/05/1986 - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,156.msg345.html#msg345

An interesting paragraph from the 30/09/85 statement concerning the blood stains to Sheila reads as follows:

BLOOD STAINS:
There was blood staining of her nightdress where her right wrist had been lying. This blood appeared to have been transferred from her wrist.
There was also blood on both sides of her right forearm which had formed trails as well as some smearing and spotting.
On her right upper arm there were two trails of blood which ran vertically down the outer side of the arm. These were associated with substantial blood staining of the right side of the nightdress in the axilla and below, as well as in the neck region on the same side.The blood had run down from wounds in her neck which are described in detail elsewhere. There was also some spotting of blood in the same area of the garment.
There was also blood around her mouth which had run down her face in a vertical direction. In addition there was also a small amount of blood around her nose.


................Then later in the same statement .......

UPPER LIMBS
The blood stains have been noted above. Her fingernails were long and painted with red varnish. The palms and fingers were not contaminated with blood. there were nicotine stains on the finger of the right hand.

[grahameb]

One would think that if Sheila had been passive in the process of her murder then Jeremy should not have had to stage her body? The police on the other hand, if it is true and it appears from the comments of Jeremy, that there was "horseplay" among them, then they may have had to stage the body in order to cover up what they had done. But Jeremy staging the body? It looks very unlikely?

[Hartley]

One would think that if Sheila had been passive in the process of her murder then Jeremy should not have had to stage her body? The police on the other hand, if it is true and it appears from the comments of Jeremy, that there was "horseplay" among them, then they may have had to stage the body in order to cover up what they had done. But Jeremy staging the body? It looks very unlikely?

I don't think you are being realistic, that isn't even an argument, the official and accepted in a court of law scenario is that Jeremy stage managed Sheila's body. That is a fact. Simply for you to so you don't think it happened like that, does not detract from the prosecutions case upon which the conviction was based.

[Hartley]

Dr Vanezis hand written notes. Not very easy to read but there is mention of the blood staining.

[smiffy]

We are told in evidence that Sheila's hands (palms) were photographed at the autopsy.
It was claimed that this was done before they were cleaned.
It seems these were not produced in evidence.
This seems most strange if true and as the issue is as to whether her palm and fingers were bloodied then the failure to produce the photographs suggests the claims that her hands were clean and unbloodied is untrue.

If evidence is available to back up a claim then it should be produced.

[grahameb]

We are told in evidence that Sheila's hands (palms) were photographed at the autopsy.
It was claimed that this was done before they were cleaned.
It seems these were not produced in evidence.
This seems most strange if true and as the issue is as to whether her palm and fingers were bloodied then the failure to produce the photographs suggests the claims that her hands were clean and unbloodied is untrue.

If evidence is available to back up a claim then it should be produced.

Why are there no pictures of Sheila's palms? It appears that all the evidence produced in court was what people "said" without any pictures to back them up?