Lies told about state of blood (SC) - easily disproved...

[mike tesko]

It's nothing to do with photocopier cartridges. This is the photo of a photo taken by Mike, and from which the lower 'greyer' blow up is taken:



The 'redder' blow up has been taken by the defence from the original of that photo, or possibly from the negative if it was available. The version of the redder blow up that we see appears to have been enhanced, presumably by the newspaper which published it. Alternatively, the redder blow up is exactly what was submitted by the defence and then given to the paper, in which case it is fairly obvious why it was rejected.

First of all, get your facts right - there were two of us taking photographs with our cameras when we went to London in 2004, which one of us are you saying took this picture (and which picture are you referring to)? I have explained that during the photocopying of some pictures from the senior investigating officers album, the colour cartridge was running out which caused a reduction in printing quality of the said image. If my colleague took a photograph of a photograph using her camera, then of course I would not have been aware of that because I was not controlling the use of her camera. Another explanation was that when she sent me some of the images in her possession, these could have been photocopied by her before she scanned them over to me, and what is more, I was not in control of the settings of her scanner, nor did I pay particular attention to any settings on my printer which printed off the said image, or images...

[Bridget]

What difference does it make which of you took it?

[mike tesko]

What difference does it make which of you took it?

It makes a difference if I did not take the picture, because if I didn't take the picture how can I answer accurately what setting her camera was set at, or hope to know her scanner settings when she posted a copy to me, or even what settings her printer were set at, if she copied the image she took at the offices of GDS, in 2004? I did not have possession of the original poor quality images given to us in London by Michael De Stefano, and I had no control over how much colour ink might be inside the cartridges which were in use inside his printer at that time. I am not making up excuses I am merely trying to explain how several poor quality images came to be in my possession. It is also possible that I cropped some areas in some of the images I received from her, which were of interest to everyone and that only ceratin parts or areas of the poor quality images were posted on the forum - without checking I can;'t say for sure what took place, other than what I have already said...

[Bridget]

It makes a difference if I did not take the picture, because if I didn't take the picture how can I answer accurately what setting her camera was set at, or hope to know her scanner settings when she posted a copy to me, or even what settings her printer were set at, if she copied the image she took at the offices of GDS, in 2004? I did not have possession of the original poor quality images given to us in London by Michael De Stefano, and I had no control over how much colour ink might be inside the cartridges which were in use inside his printer at that time. I am not making up excuses I am merely trying to explain how several poor quality images came to be in my possession. It is also possible that I cropped some areas in some of the images I received from her, which were of interest to everyone and that only ceratin parts or areas of the poor quality images were posted on the forum - without checking I can;'t say for sure what took place, other than what I have already said...

None of that matters Mike, none of it is relevant to the point I'm making and I'm not accusing you of anything. If anything I'm doing the same as you - explaining why the two versions of the photo are different. Chill...

[mike tesko]

None of that matters Mike, none of it is relevant to the point I'm making and I'm not accusing you of anything. If anything I'm doing the same as you - explaining why the two versions of the photo are different. Chill...

OK, but in any event I have not done anything wrong, you could just as easily say that when the police developed the photographs that PC Bird took at the seen, all manner of tricks could have been used, to present images involving different settings with use of the camera that took pictures, or later in the development stage. One thing I can report on which I know as fact is that Sheila was photographed on the bed at a time when there was no horizontal blood running, leaking and pouring from any wound upon her neck / throat, or the corners of her mouth, etc...

I have seen all 581 pictures in the senior investigating officers album, something which Jeremy did not get to see before his trial, or during his trial, or during any subsequent appeal hearing (2002). Many of these pictures, did not see the light of day until 2004, and this feature has not yet been dealt with by any court of appeal, which I think is absolutely scandalous...

[Bridget]

OK, but in any event I have not done anything wrong, you could just as easily say that when the police developed the photographs that PC Bird took at the seen, all manner of tricks could have been used, to present images involving different settings with use of the camera that took pictures, or later in the development stage. One thing I can report on which I know as fact is that Sheila was photographed on the bed at a time when there was no horizontal blood running, leaking and pouring from any wound upon her neck / throat, or the corners of her mouth, etc...

I have seen all 581 pictures in the senior investigating officers album, something which Jeremy did not get to see before his trial, or during his trial, or during any subsequent appeal hearing (2002). Many of these pictures, did not see the light of day until 2004, and this feature has not yet been dealt with by any court of appeal, which I think is absolutely scandalous...

No, you've done nothing wrong.

Can you clarify exactly when that photo, the one in my post which has '27' in the corner, was first disclosed to the defence?

[mike tesko]

It's nothing to do with photocopier cartridges. This is the photo of a photo taken by Mike, and from which the lower 'greyer' blow up is taken:



The 'redder' blow up has been taken by the defence from the original of that photo, or possibly from the negative if it was available. The version of the redder blow up that we see appears to have been enhanced, presumably by the newspaper which published it. Alternatively, the redder blow up is exactly what was submitted by the defence and then given to the paper, in which case it is fairly obvious why it was rejected.

"Look at these two crime scene photographs, one numbered 27 and the other numbered 32 - which was taken first"?



"Now, look at the image which shows the wet blood, and tell me which picture (27 or 32) was taken first"?



Look at the shape and position of the triangular bloodstain on the top right hand side of Sheila's nightdress, why and under what circumstances did it alter or change?

[mike tesko]

One thing which also becomes absolutely clear by reference to photographs 27 and 32, is that the position of the rifle has altered but the shape of her right arm, in comparison to the bloodied marks on the front lower right of her nightdress remained the same - why would police alter the position of the rifle so that its barrel was shifted from resting against her neck in 27 to the muzzle of the rifle ending up beneath her chin in 32, without effecting the shape and position of her right arm and hand in relation to the position of the bloodied mark on her nightdress?

[Roch]

One thing which also becomes absolutely clear by reference to photographs 27 and 32, is that the position of the rifle has altered but the shape of her right arm, in comparison to the bloodied marks on the front lower right of her nightdress remained the same - why would police alter the position of the rifle so that its barrel was shifted from resting against her neck in 27 to the muzzle of the rifle ending up beneath her chin in 32, without effecting the shape and position of her right arm and hand in relation to the position of the bloodied mark on her nightdress?

Because if she had shot her self the rifle would not have ended up with the barrel / muzzle so high.  So in order to reinforce that she had shot her self, it had to be made to look as though the barrel / muzzle corresponded with the wounds and a more realistic position on her body.

[mike tesko]

Because if she had shot her self the rifle would not have ended up with the barrel / muzzle so high.  So in order to reinforce that she had shot her self, it had to be made to look as though the barrel / muzzle corresponded with the wounds and a more realistic position on her body.

That is an excellent observation, and one I had not thought about - well done...

[mike tesko]

In order to make it fit in with the conclusion that Sheila had taken her own life by shooting herself under the chin, police had to re-stage the body of Sheila, with the barrel beneath her chin, rather than resting against it on the left hand side, because she could not have committed suicide and the rifle end up on her body with its barrel on that side of her neck / throat, so they had to move the gun and leave the barrel of the rifle somewhere beneath her chin (as pointed out to me by ROCH)...

[Jane]

One thing which also becomes absolutely clear by reference to photographs 27 and 32, is that the position of the rifle has altered but the shape of her right arm, in comparison to the bloodied marks on the front lower right of her nightdress remained the same - why would police alter the position of the rifle so that its barrel was shifted from resting against her neck in 27 to the muzzle of the rifle ending up beneath her chin in 32, without effecting the shape and position of her right arm and hand in relation to the position of the bloodied mark on her nightdress?

Mike, how is it that both shots are to the right of her neck so it follows that leakage from them means an accumulation of blood would pool in her right armpit, but although her head is turned to the right there is only a thin trickle emitting from the right side of her mouth? the thickest flow is from  the left side of her mouth and runs back to her eye. How does anything flow uphill, or is it the angle at which the picture has been taken?

[Roch]

I may have spotted a problem with that theory.  The photograph which is duplicated both matt and wet blood in appearance... the two we have all been arguing about... where is the barrel?  Is it in the higher position or in the lower position?

[mike tesko]

I may have spotted a problem with that theory.  The photograph which is duplicated both matt and wet blood in appearance... the two we have all been arguing about... where is the barrel?  Is it in the higher position or in the lower position?

Could you please enlighten us all...

[Patti]

I may have spotted a problem with that theory.  The photograph which is duplicated both matt and wet blood in appearance... the two we have all been arguing about... where is the barrel?  Is it in the higher position or in the lower position?

You are right Roch, I have had a quick look they are two different shots. The rifle has been moved. Hope this is what you are on about, if not tell me to shove off....lol  So 32 has to be the first picture.