Alleged photograph of Sheila on the bed with a single gunshot wound to her neck.

[ngb1066]

ngb - that's a fair explanation, and one I will consider in my belief of the photo - cheers!

However; the fact that it has only recently been used in a CPR theory still raises doubts in me.IF...... it is a real picture of SC with all the blood about her (and at let's say the mortuary pre pm), the blood smearing could have been caused by her face rubbing on the inside of the body bag, rather than the administering of CPR!

To be clear, the picture and the CPR theory do not form part of the defence submissions to the CCRC.

 

[Newbury1]

To be clear, the picture and the CPR theory do not form part of the defence submissions to the CCRC.

Yes, I understand.

I flagged up the two events (the CPR theory and the CCRC) to highlight the position that in my opinion the CPR theory would not stand the light of day with JB's legal team and the CCRC, and for that reason the CPR theory was weak.

[Roch]

Yes, I understand.

I flagged up the two events (the CPR theory and the CCRC) to highlight the position that in my opinion the CPR theory would not stand the light of day with JB's legal team and the CCRC, and for that reason the CPR theory was weak.

If this photo (or video still) is genuine, and there are plenty on the other (guilty) forum who believe that it is, then can the excess of blood be explained by other factors not relating to the controversially alleged CPR? 

Again, if genuine, are we all in agreement that this excessive blood is occuring six to seven hours after the latest time frame for JB to have been in the farmhouse?

[Chochokeira]

Nick  - I am around 65/35 in favour of the picture being genuine.

I do not believe there is any legal basis preventing the use of the picture in a documentary or on a forum such as this.  The only point which might in theory be raised is copyright, but I doubt if Essex Police would try to restrain publication on the grounds that their copyright in the photograph was infringed.  I do not see any way in which Sheila's family could prevent publication.

Somewhere in the back of my mind is a distant memory of someone telling me that stills taken from publicly distributed videos and photoshopped to improve clarity are not subject to copyright because these are creative products in themselves and so different from the original moving images. Though I suppose the flaw in that claim is that copyright may be breached in order to obtain the original image,

[mike tesko]

This is an image taken of Sheila at the scene extracted from the video footage which the CCRC have access to, but which they are refusing to make available to Jeremy or those representing his interests. Until the contents of that video footage are disclosed Jeremy and those representing his interests would be well advised to think long and hard before rejecting this evidence out of hand as being a still or photograph taken whilst Sheila's body was at the mortuary?

If it was a photograph of Sheila taken at the mortuary why would the image be so grainy?

[mike tesko]

Above images are 100% of Sheila...

[vidvic]

Mike. If this is a still from a police video, why is it in 16:9 format? 16:9 didn't exist in 1985.

If it was a still from a video, then it has been digitally zoomed to make it fit the correct aspect ratio and again, if it were a video, for a digitally zoomed image, from 1985, the resolution is unrealisticly good.

Are we expected to believe that a hitherto elusive video tape of the scene, which the defence have made numerous requests to have viewed, was given to a production company for a documentary, no one realising until Andrea spotted it?

[mike tesko]

Mike. If this is a still from a police video, why is it in 16:9 format? 16:9 didn't exist in 1985.

If it was a still from a video, then it has been digitally zoomed to make it fit the correct aspect ratio and again, if it were a video, for a digitally zoomed image, from 1985, the resolution is unrealisticly good.

Are we expected to believe that a hitherto elusive video tape of the scene, which the defence have made numerous requests to have viewed, was given to a production company for a documentary, no one realising until Andrea spotted it?

Firstly, video footage was known about long before Andrea posted a link to the documentary, secondly format may have been adapted by the documentary makers to enable it to be embedded into the documentary, I can't speak for them, and neither can you. Truth is, this is a true image of Sheila's body insitu, at the scene, at a time when all this additional blood is visible around her mouth, upon her face and neck, which was not visible in the other disclosed images taken of Sheila on the floor by which stage she had the two wounds to her neck. What we have here is a photograph of Sheila in this awful state being broadcasted to the general public on public TV, and in the past we have had various people complaining that I have posted images on the forum, lets put it this way, what is good for the TV Companies is good enough me for too...

We know the images are not very nice to look at, but if we want to get to the truth we have to look at them, unfortunately...

I have some other information about the still photograph which I might be prepared to share with everybody, which  I think gives a further insight into what took place, when and why?

Then again, if I keep getting abuse from everyone I might simply keep it to myself like I have done with so many other things relating to the case...

There are lots of things I could release information about, but I choose not to, because I want to develop debate around that information and basically see what peoples opinions are, before I introduce that material. This is only a forum, it is not a court where evidence will be evaluated or any decisions about any possible appeal will/can be made, and everyone should realize that...

[boheme]

Hi Mike, please keep posting, yes the photos are distressing but personally I prefer to see them than not.

[vidvic]

Mike, you might care to read my post again, as your answer makes no sense to me.

[andrea]

Hallo Vic! 

[mertol22]

Mike this is your forum and at any time its your choice what you decide to post and what not, as to these disturbing pictures, 5 people were shot dead that day hiding behind a wall is not the answer if people think these pictures are disturbing i promise you the real thing is a lot more and i know that when you place a child in a removal stretcher you have your answers, i dread to think the pictures  are really like taken at the scene on that day.

[mike tesko]

Mike, you might care to read my post again, as your answer makes no sense to me.

(Are we expected to believe that a hitherto elusive video tape of the scene, which the defence have made numerous requests to have viewed, was given to a production company for a documentary, no one realising until Andrea spotted it?)

Production company acquired it, yes - but who from? Your guess is as good as mine...

[Chochokeira]

Mike. If this is a still from a police video, why is it in 16:9 format? 16:9 didn't exist in 1985.

If it was a still from a video, then it has been digitally zoomed to make it fit the correct aspect ratio and again, if it were a video, for a digitally zoomed image, from 1985, the resolution is unrealisticly good.

Are we expected to believe that a hitherto elusive video tape of the scene, which the defence have made numerous requests to have viewed, was given to a production company for a documentary, no one realising until Andrea spotted it?

I have a still from a 1965 video and it's crystal clear.

[Chochokeira]

Production company acquired it, yes - but who from? Your guess is as good as mine...

It's the norm for Journalists and the media to be able to access material which is not available to the rest of us. I recently had some involvement with a production crew who used part of my town as a location for a feature film. The filming caused major disruption in the areas that were filmed, yet my local council and every organisation the production team approached gave them unprecedented access to any area and to every piece of material they requested. I have little doubt that the media can acquire the same open access to channels of information that are officially closed to the public.