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

[-Harters-]

Ignore my poor spelling of his name, but what did the Proff, examine in 1992 if the photographs weren't released for another 12 years?

 http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,264.msg1955.html#msg1955

[Bridget]

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?

That's pretty much it, but I'm not saying that the defence (or Mike) had anything to do with enhancing the photo, or that an enhanced photo was used by the defence. I'm just pointing out the fact that it's pointless us arguing about whether or not it shows oxygenated blood because we're not looking at the original, which I suspect will be a tad less red in hue.

[Bridget]

While we're on this subject, what is the defence case with regards this 'oxygenated' photo? When do they say it was taken?

[Roch]

If we run with the line you're taking, the defence have entirely invented the dicovery of an entire batch of photos, that they had alread seen and already had access to but just decided to make a hoohar about in 2004.  If you want to make that accusation on here, then that's up to you.

[-Harters-]

If we run with the line you're taking, the defence have entirely invented the dicovery of an entire batch of photos, that they had alread seen and already had access to but just decided to make a hoohar about in 2004.  If you want to make that accusation on here, then that's up to you.

Rochy, seriously, as a moderator, do you not think it's a bit out of order to twist peoples words to make it sound as they are saying something they are not, or that they are making accusations when they are not?

You, or Mike, or the defence (I'm not exactly sure who) are suggesting that there are photographs which show Sheilas body with wet blood which were only released in 2004, are you suggesting that photographs of Sheilas wounds which were available before then showed dried blood?

I'm just trying to understand your argument, please stop making digs.

[Roch]

That's pretty much it, but I'm not saying that the defence (or Mike) had anything to do with enhancing the photo, or that an enhanced photo was used by the defence. I'm just pointing out the fact that it's pointless us arguing about whether or not it shows oxygenated blood because we're not looking at the original, which I suspect will be a tad less red in hue.

So you are arguing that no difference exists re content, between the two groups of photographs, and one batch has simply been seen many years later than the other batch.  But Hartley is going a step further and arguing that there never were two batches and the batch that was allegedly only seen in 2003 / 2004 were always in the possession of the defence already. 

Is that correct?

[Roch]

Rochy, seriously, as a moderator, do you not think it's a bit out of order to twist peoples words to make it sound as they are saying something they are not, or that they are making accusations when they are not?

You, or Mike, or the defence (I'm not exactly sure who) are suggesting that there are photographs which show Sheilas body with wet blood which were only released in 2004, are you suggesting that photographs of Sheilas wounds which were available before then showed dried blood?

I'm just trying to understand your argument, please stop making digs.

I'm not twisting your words, I'm genuinely trying to understand the points that you and Bridgit are either inferring or directly stating.  This is how I'm picking up what you mean.  Honest guv.  I'll be back later, or I'll be in trouble with my colleagues.

[-Harters-]

I'm not twisting your words, I'm genuinely trying to understand the points that you and Bridgit are either inferring or directly stating.  This is how I'm picking up what you mean.  Honest guv.  I'll be back later, or I'll be in trouble with my colleagues.

I don't believe you, but that doesn't matter, can you clarify your position please by answering my question?

My question was:
You, or Mike, or the defence (I'm not exactly sure who) are suggesting that there are photographs which show Sheilas body with wet blood which were only released in 2004, are you suggesting that photographs of Sheilas wounds which were available prior to 2004, only showed dried blood?

[-Harters-]

I'll just add links rather than splashing the photographs about unnecessarily, but do you think these two images are from different photographs? Or do you think it's two copies from the same photograph of differing quality, the redder one having been digitally enhanced?

Grainy photo:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4315;image

Cropped, digitally enhanced, rotated image either taken from the negative, or a higher resolution print of the same photo as that above:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=18724;image

That is my "opinion" Rochy, please note that this isn't an accusation against anybody, in case that is what you choose to infer.

[Bridget]

So you are arguing that no difference exists re content, between the two groups of photographs, and one batch has simply been seen many years later than the other batch.  But Hartley is going a step further and arguing that there never were two batches and the batch that was allegedly only seen in 2003 / 2004 were always in the possession of the defence already. 

Is that correct?

I don't know who saw what and when but yes, unless it is being asserted that this newer photo was taken at a different time to the rest, why would the content be any different from the rest?

[-Harters-]

I'll just add links rather than splashing the photographs about unnecessarily, but do you think these two images are from different photographs? Or do you think it's two copies from the same photograph of differing quality, the redder one having been digitally enhanced?

Grainy photo:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4315;image

Cropped, digitally enhanced, rotated image either taken from the negative, or a higher resolution print of the same photo as that above:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=18724;image

That is my "opinion" Rochy, please note that this isn't an accusation against anybody, in case that is what you choose to infer.

In fact, I've just rotated, cropped and resized the images and placed them side by side and they are identical. It is 100% certain that they are the same image.

We can't attach images to the forum any more, but if anybody would like to see the images compared in this way then feel free to PM me and I'll send via email.

[Bridget]

In fact, I've just rotated, cropped and resized the images and placed them side by side and they are identical. It is 100% certain that they are the same image.

We can't attach images to the forum any more, but if anybody would like to see the images compared in this way then feel free to PM me and I'll send via email.

I've just done the same thing. I'll see if I can post them.

[Bridget]

[-Harters-]

Thank you Bridget. 

[Roch]

I don't know who saw what and when but yes, unless it is being asserted that this newer photo was taken at a different time to the rest, why would the content be any different from the rest?

That is what has been asserted, as you put it.