Sheila committed suicide?

[grahameb]

Venezis describes what each of the victims were wearing in his report and doesn't mention any underwear.

So why then did not Mike say that June also was not wearing any underwear? Yet it is not disputed that she was, even though Venezis does not mention that either?

[Bridget]

So why then did not Mike say that June also was not wearing any underwear? Yet it is not disputed that she was, even though Venezis does not mention that either?

Because it hasn't been relevant to any of his theories (so far). What do you mean when you say "yet it is not disputed that she was", do you mean you think June was wearing underwear?

[grahameb]

Because it hasn't been relevant to any of his theories (so far). What do you mean when you say "yet it is not disputed that she was", do you mean you think June was wearing underwear?

Apparently so? Unless of course you would like to dispute it?

[Bridget]

Apparently so? Unless of course you would like to dispute it?

I don't think I've even thought about it before - why do you think she was?

[Jane]

Because it hasn't been relevant to any of his theories (so far). What do you mean when you say "yet it is not disputed that she was", do you mean you think June was wearing underwear?

Morning, Bridget. I hadn't given it a thought, one way or the other. It's important in respect to what?

[Bridget]

Morning, Bridget. I hadn't given it a thought, one way or the other. It's important in respect to what?

Morning April, I dunno, ask Grahame

[Jane]

Morning April, I dunno, ask Grahame

Grahame.......?

[grahameb]

Apparently so? Unless of course you would like to dispute it?

Also of course it will be noted that entire threads have been devoted to Sheila's underwear in which it has never been disputed that Sheila wasn't wearing any. In fact it is generally accepted and it had been originally stated by Mike. Now you can't tell me that everyone alluded to Venezis post mortem notes. They knew because Mike said it was so and it had been accepted as fact by everyone. But it was still Mike who first mentioned it. And I put it to you that he knew that fact because he had seen a photograph of Sheila on the bed. Whether that photo still exists is neither here nor there. But he had referred to such a photo for as long as I can remember that's for sure. Furthermore Mat, who claims to work for a company which in some capacity works for the CCRC, (and also is an anti Bamber so it would benefit him nothing in agreeing with Mike) also confirms the existence of suchj a photo. There is also an oblique reference to it in that it is to be found in Ann Eaton's statement that Sheila was found on the bed. It doesn't really matter who told her. But she has of course demonstrated her perfect memory on many occasions. Even today I can confirm that she still remembers precicely what happened that day.

[grahameb]

Morning, Bridget. I hadn't given it a thought, one way or the other. It's important in respect to what?

It is important only in so far as it brings into dispute, because it wasn't mentioned by Vendezis whether because it isn't disputed that Sheila wasn't wearing any underwear, whether it also applied to June as well, since he didn't mention if she was or wasn't wearing any either.
The contention is that it has been generally accepted that Sheila wasn't wearing any underwear. But that it was not Vendezis where people derived that information from. But from Mike himself. In other words everyone believed Mike on this issue. But continue to refuse to believe that such a photo exists/existed. simples.

[Jane]

Also of course it will be noted that entire threads have been devoted to Sheila's underwear in which it has never been disputed that Sheila wasn't wearing any. In fact it is generally accepted and it had been originally stated by Mike. Now you can't tell me that everyone alluded to Venezis post mortem notes. They knew because Mike said it was so and it had been accepted as fact by everyone. But it was still Mike who first mentioned it. And I put it to you that he knew that fact because he had seen a photograph of Sheila on the bed. Whether that photo still exists is neither here nor there. But he had referred to such a photo for as long as I can remember that's for sure. Furthermore Mat, who claims to work for a company which in some capacity works for the CCRC, (and also is an anti Bamber so it would benefit him nothing in agreeing with Mike) also confirms the existence of suchj a photo. There is also an oblique reference to it in that it is to be found in Ann Eaton's statement that Sheila was found on the bed. It doesn't really matter who told her. But she has of course demonstrated her perfect memory on many occasions. Even today I can confirm that she still remembers precicely what happened that day.

Thanks for that, Grahame. With reference to AEs perfect recall. It doesn't make what she remembers a universal truth, only her version of it and the two aren't necessarily the same!!!!!

[Bridget]

It is important only in so far as it brings into dispute, because it wasn't mentioned by Vendezis whether because it isn't disputed that Sheila wasn't wearing any underwear, whether it also applied to June as well, since he didn't mention if she was or wasn't wearing any either.
The contention is that it has been generally accepted that Sheila wasn't wearing any underwear. But that it was not Vendezis where people derived that information from. But from Mike himself. In other words everyone believed Mike on this issue. But continue to refuse to believe that such a photo exists/existed. simples.

Venezis lists everything that was on Sheila's body, right down to her ear rings. Of course he doesn't mention things that she wasn't wearing, why would he? You would have to ask others why they believe that Sheila wasn't wearing underwear but for me it has nothing to do with anything Mike has said.

[Roch]

Venezis lists everything that was on Sheila's body, right down to her ear rings. Of course he doesn't mention things that she wasn't wearing, why would he? You would have to ask others why they believe that Sheila wasn't wearing underwear but for me it has nothing to do with anything Mike has said.

Bridget can you remember if both ear rings are listed present?

[Bridget]

Bridget can you remember if both ear rings are listed present?

He says: "she had stud earrings in both ears"

[Roch]

He says: "she had stud earrings in both ears"

Thanks.

[grahameb]

Venezis lists everything that was on Sheila's body, right down to her ear rings. Of course he doesn't mention things that she wasn't wearing, why would he? You would have to ask others why they believe that Sheila wasn't wearing underwear but for me it has nothing to do with anything Mike has said.

Well it was you who introduced Vendezis, not me. All I am saying is that Mike has said for as long as I can remember that Sheila wasn't wearing any underwear. Now whether you imagine it has nothing to do with what Mike has said, is up to you. But the plain facts are that people on this forum have accepted what he said as "truth" without question. But as soon as he says that he got that informaqtion from a photograph that he has seen, everyone says he's lying and that he has never seen such a photograph. Now whether you like it or not that is a blatent contradiction of logic. Particularly when he says himself that, that is how he knew. Come on let's see some kind of consistency here. No one derived aqnything of the sort from Vandezis post mortem. That is evident because no one has every mentioned it but you this day.