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

[Bridget]

Enhanced by the defence or by Mike Tesko?  Enhanced on behalf of the defence or on behalf of Mike Tesko?  Do you have any proof of enhancement to produce the effects you claim?

No, enhanced by the paper which posted it on its website - am I speaking Chinese?

[-Harters-]

I'm not sure what you mean by questioning gunshot wounds.  But do you have a link to the photo in question here that you think differs from the newspaper photo.  Maybe we can try and find what you mean.

Ralph's injuries and positioning were entirely different and involved severe trauma to the head / brain.  We also have no time of death for Ralph.  There is also the disputed possibility that he was knocked over by TFG.

Just being daft that the note is pointing to one but is labelled as a plural. The photograph I mean is in the library archive, near where you got that one.

I don't think it's possible for us to tell from the photographs whether the blood is wet or not, I also don't believe that the likes of you and I are qualified to understand what it would actually indicate if her blood was wet.

If the implications match the allegations then I would be surprised, mainly because all of these images have been available from the outset, yet nobody has shown any concern, not the prosecution or the defence, even the defence instructed Prof Leon MacDonell.

I don't understand the arguments, first of all for saying her blood was wet and secondly by assuming a time of death on that basis alone.

Of course if you have already decided that Jeremy is innocent, then obviously Sheilas blood is still wet and obviously that means she was killed just before being photographed. 

[mike tesko]

Just being daft that the note is pointing to one but is labelled as a plural. The photograph I mean is in the library archive, near where you got that one.

I don't think it's possible for us to tell from the photographs whether the blood is wet or not, I also don't believe that the likes of you and I are qualified to understand what it would actually indicate if her blood was wet.

If the implications match the allegations then I would be surprised, mainly because all of these images have been available from the outset, yet nobody has shown any concern, not the prosecution or the defence, even the defence instructed Prof Leon MacDonell.

I don't understand the arguments, first of all for saying her blood was wet and secondly by assuming a time of death on that basis alone.

Of course if you have already decided that Jeremy is innocent, then obviously Sheilas blood is still wet and obviously that means she was killed just before being photographed.  :P

What a load of garbage....

Look at the following two crime scene images of SHEILA CAFFELL, one taken of Sheila on the bedroom floor after a policeman shot Sheila under the chin and killed her, and her body was stage managed on the bedroom floor, and the other after CPR had been performed upon Sheila' by two different police officers - how did the additional blood which appears upon Sheila's face and throat get there if it wasn't wet at sometime after PC Bird took his stage managed photographs of Sheila's body on the floor with two bullet entry wounds?

I am not aware that dry blood can smear and run and leak and pour all over her face and throat, unless you and those on your side of the fence who are even listening or considering the garbage you keep posting about there not being any wet blood?









"Don't Tell me blood on her throat is not wet"...







"So, tell me how all this additional smeared blood upon Sheila's face and throat got there during CPR if it was dried blood and never wet at any stage - take as much time as you like trying to put your spin on your lunatic suggestions"?

[mike tesko]

Suggestions that this is not a crime scene image of Sheila, but rather a photograph of June Bamber is absolutely bonkers - I didn't know June had been shot in the throat?

[rhodes]

Thats a morgue photo and someone had the cheek to complain about Joan Alberts crime scene photo being posted yesterday. Hypocrites one and all.

[mike tesko]

Suggestions that this is not a crime scene image of Sheila, but rather a photograph of June Bamber is absolutely bonkers - I didn't know June had been shot in the throat?

This is what the other side do when they are faced with having to concede that police stage managed Sheila's body by moving it from the bed, to the floor, by planting a rifle that was leaning against the bedroom window just before the raid team went in to the premises onto her body, by adjusting her nightdress, and by planting a bible next to her body - they make up all manner of excuses which amount to nothing...

Their excuses amount to nothing because the police have gone on record as saying they didn't move or touch anything until after PC Bird completed taking his crime scene pictures, yet the crime scene photographs posted on this forum prove the police have lied. The excuses being banded about by some on this forum for why the police did stage manage Sheila's body, are also blatant lies, and designed to lessen the seriousness of what the police did and have done...

It appears there are some amongst us who support the corrupt activities and actions of the investigating officers in this particular case.  At least one of the relatives tampered with the most significant exhibits of all in the case (silencer /blood) and the relative in question thinks it was al-right to keep quiet about what he did, as though he did nothing wrong, and he has the cheek to to keep appearing on TV news and documentaries as though he is some sort of victim in this matter, when all along he knows that if he had told the court that tried this matter that he had tried to unscrew the silencers end cap off but failed because it was too tight, and that he had used a razor blade to physically remove a crucial flake of blood, which is suspected of being handed over to Essex police and deliberately planted inside the silencer so that when it was sent to the lab' it could be found there and used to wrongly suggest a silencer was fitted to the rifles barrel which fired the so called fatal bullet (PV/19) under the chin...

Still waiting for David Boutflour to go public and make an official statement about how he deliberately tampered with an interfered with the silencer / blood evidence in this case?

[rhodes]

Sorry to say it mikey but your talkin through your arse mate.   

[mike tesko]

Sorry to say it mikey but your talkin through your arse mate.   

No, you are...

[lookout]

Suggestions that this is not a crime scene image of Sheila, but rather a photograph of June Bamber is absolutely bonkers - I didn't know June had been shot in the throat?

Hi Mike,,the indication I got that it was June,,,was the nose. I was comparing the nostrils as being from an older person,,,compared with Sheilas' small nose,,that's all. I'll study it more closely. Of course the " giveaway " are the throat/neck wounds. ( I'm a bugger for detail ) )

[Roch]

No, enhanced by the paper which posted it on its website - am I speaking Chinese?

It's not that you're speaking chinese, it's that I'm trying to get to the bottom of what is being inferred.  This seems to me to be the following:

Any photos that where originally withheld from the defence, which the defence then got hold of approx 19 years after the fact, and which the defence have argued show oxygenated blood, are in fact no different in content than the photos originally disclosed / used by the prosecution at trial.  Furthermore, in order to sell newspapers / aid the defence stirring up shit, the newspaper have enhanced one of these photos?

Am I along the right lines?

[lookout]

That left arm must have been malleable enough at the time to have straightened it,as seen on other various pics. Otherwise,not so after a couple or so hours.
Surely body temperature was taken,,,warmth. Nobody has mentioned whether Sheila was still warm or not.
I'm not talking room temperature either.

[Roch]

Thats a morgue photo and someone had the cheek to complain about Joan Alberts crime scene photo being posted yesterday. Hypocrites one and all.

John, to be fairm, Joan Albert's crime scene photo was very clear, very graphic and had not been seen before on this forum.  It was also posted without any warning.  Now I admit that many members on here will have become desensitised to SC crime scene pics, which are also graphic.

[Roch]

Just being daft that the note is pointing to one but is labelled as a plural. The photograph I mean is in the library archive, near where you got that one.

I don't think it's possible for us to tell from the photographs whether the blood is wet or not, I also don't believe that the likes of you and I are qualified to understand what it would actually indicate if her blood was wet.

If the implications match the allegations then I would be surprised, mainly because all of these images have been available from the outset, yet nobody has shown any concern, not the prosecution or the defence, even the defence instructed Prof Leon MacDonell.

I don't understand the arguments, first of all for saying her blood was wet and secondly by assuming a time of death on that basis alone.

Of course if you have already decided that Jeremy is innocent, then obviously Sheilas blood is still wet and obviously that means she was killed just before being photographed. 

How have all the images been available from the outset, if the defence only saw these photos in approx 2003/4?  Come off it Hartley, stop being obtuse 

[-Harters-]

It's not that you're speaking chinese, it's that I'm trying to get to the bottom of what is being inferred.  This seems to me to be the following:

Any photos that where originally withheld from the defence, which the defence then got hold of approx 19 years after the fact, and which the defence have argued show oxygenated blood, are in fact no different in content than the photos originally disclosed / used by the prosecution at trial.  Furthermore, in order to sell newspapers / aid the defence stirring up shit, the newspaper have enhanced one of these photos?

Am I along the right lines?

What makes you think these photographs really were withheld? Does that mean the defence are saying that they never had access to photographs of Sheilas wounds? Like the considerable number of photographs examined by Prof Macdonell?

[-Harters-]

How have all the images been available from the outset, if the defence only saw these photos in approx 2003/4?  Come off it Hartley, stop being obtuse 

It's a myth I'm afraid. Stop swallowing everything put in your glass.