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

[mike tesko]

How could / can blood run horizontally from the corners of Sheila's mouth and entry wound sites, if blood falls to the lowest part of the body after death, if police or anyone did not stage manage Sheila's body, and she died there on the bedroom floor, and nobody moved or put her body there, or stage managed it? By the same token, how did blood from the lower entry wound manage to run in a totally different direction if she was not stood upright at any stage, after the first shot was / had been inflicted?

I would suggest and I believe and know that after Sheila was shot for the first time she was stood upright and walked about, but that she was laid down when a policeman shot her with use of the WPC Jeapes rifle that had earlier been spotted resting against the bedroom window - now what I want to know is, how did the WPC Jeapes rifle get from the bedroom window onto Sheila's body after about 7:15am, and before 10am to enable PC Bird to photograph it there? If police found Sheila's body on the floor, and the rifle that fired the fatal bullet (PV/19) was resting against the bedroom window when police first entered the bedroom, how was /is it possible for police to conclude as they did do, that Sheila killed the others and that she had then taken her own life by shooting herself under the chin by way of a solitary shot? Even if she had two wounds by that stage (imaginary scenario) how could Sheila's body be found on the bedroom floor, and the rifle which fired both shots (imaginary scenario) be resting up against the bedroom window, and police conclude that she killed the others and then took her own life on the bedroom floor - how did the rifle which Jeapes saw get from the window onto Sheila's body by 10am that morning?

Why was there a lengthy delay before SOC were allowed to take crime scene photographs?

Did such a delay take place, or did the police just make out there was such a delay? In fact, were / are all the withheld (358) pictures which form part and parcel of the senior investigating officers (581) album, mainly photographs taken at the scene before 10am?

If all, or any of this were / is true, how can the police or anyone start to blame Jeremy for being so clever that he fooled the police into doing what they did, and thinking what they did, when Jeremy was not there  co-ordinating what the police did or did not do?

It's all bollocks...

[Bridget]

Please don't talk down to me.  No myths have been dispelled.  What has been compared is a possible photo of a photo with a possible lab blow up or enhanced image of the same crime scene, from another source, other than the photo of the photo (?).

I think the point is Roch, that both the photo of the photo (from which H and I took the 'grey' blow up) and the 'red' blow up, come from the same original source. They are from the same negative, albeit they have undergone different treatments since the picture was taken. What I'm not clear on is when the pictures of Sheila on the floor which are in the photo thread came into the defence's possession. Certainly Prof. MacDonnell examined a number of crime scene photos including pictures of Sheila in 1992, and his description of them seems to suggest he was looking at the same photos as those we have in the photo thread (better copies though of course).

[mike tesko]

Simple explanation for difference in quality of images - lower one was taken at the offices of GDS in London in 2004, when I along with another visitor (L. Manley) were invited to view photographs contained in the senior investigating officers album, and we took a series of photographs of the photographs using our own cameras. Unfortunately, we  (myself and Lee) took that many pictures the batteries in our cameras ran out and we therefore asked Michael De Stefano to photocopy more of the pictures. He started to do this but the colour cartridge in his copying machine eventually started to run out of ink, and hence the quality of the image was dramatically reduced - so no mystery there...

Whilst we were there photographing and having copies made of the photographs contained in the senior investigating officers album, GDS rang up his son (Michael) and asked how we had been getting on, and what we had discovered from examining the previously undisclosed photographs?

[mike tesko]

Simple explanation for difference in quality of images - lower one was taken at the offices of GDS in London in 2004, when I along with another visitor (L. Manley) were invited to view photographs contained in the senior investigating officers album, and we took a series of photographs of the photographs using our own cameras. Unfortunately, we  (myself and Lee) took that many pictures the batteries in our cameras ran out and we therefore asked Michael De Stefano to photocopy more of the pictures. He started to do this but the colour cartridge in his copying machine eventually started to run out of ink, and hence the quality of the image was dramatically reduced - so no mystery there...

Whilst we were there photographing and having copies made of the photographs contained in the senior investigating officers album, GDS rang up his son (Michael) and asked how we had been getting on, and what we had discovered from examining the previously undisclosed photographs?

I would also like to add that because this particular image was one of the copies made by Michael de Stefano and the ink in his copying machine had started to run out, that my colleague retained these copies and posted them to me by email attachment a few days or weeks later ( so there is a record showing the corresponding email sent between us with this image in this condition sent by her to me on that occasion - so you could hardly call that us manipulating this particular photograph)?

[mike tesko]

I would also like to add that because this particular image was one of the copies made by Michael de Stefano and the ink in his copying machine had started to run out, that my colleague retained these copies and posted them to me by email attachment a few days or weeks later ( so there is a record showing the corresponding email sent between us with this image in this condition sent by her to me on that occasion - so you could hardly call that us manipulating this particular photograph)?

We particularly wanted that photograph copied from the senior investigating officers album, because of the "wet state of the blood" which we believed showed that Sheila had very recently died, or her body had been very recently stage managed by the police?

[Bridget]

I would also like to add that because this particular image was one of the copies made by Michael de Stefano and the ink in his copying machine had started to run out, that my colleague retained these copies and posted them to me by email attachment a few days or weeks later ( so there is a record showing the corresponding email sent between us with this image in this condition sent by her to me on that occasion - so you could hardly call that us manipulating this particular photograph)?

I don't think anyone is accusing you of manipulating the photograph.

[mike tesko]

We particularly wanted that photograph copied from the senior investigating officers album, because of the "wet state of the blood" which we believed showed that Sheila had very recently died, or her body had been very recently stage managed by the police?

There were other photograph we saw which we simply did not have time to copy or get them copied because batteries ran out for our cameras, and the colour ink in the photocopying machine in the office also started to run out...

[mike tesko]

I don't think anyone is accusing you of manipulating the photograph.

This is the true explanation for how the two exact images are displayed in different contrast, colour and tone...

Blood on Sheila's neck / throat was /is wet - it is wet because either Sheila had very recently died or that someone had very recently stage managed her body, and Jeremy could not be the person involved in killing her (if that is the correct interpretation) or of stage managing her body (if that is the correct interpretation) - Jeremy is innocent, and he killed no-one, and he did not stage manage the bodies in keeping with what the prosecution suggested to the jury at his trial, it was the police who shot and killed Sheila, and it was the police who stage managed her body...

[mike tesko]

This is the true explanation for how the two exact images are displayed in different contrast, colour and tone...

Blood on Sheila's neck / throat was /is wet - it is wet because either Sheila had very recently died or that someone had very recently stage managed her body, and Jeremy could not be the person involved in killing her (if that is the correct interpretation) or of stage managing her body (if that is the correct interpretation) - Jeremy is innocent, and he killed no-one, and he did not stage manage the bodies in keeping with what the prosecution suggested to the jury at his trial, it was the police who shot and killed Sheila, and it was the police who stage managed her body...

Why did Essex police and the CPS hide this photograph showing the wet looking blood from Bamber, his legal team, and the court which tried him for the murders? Why was it concealed inside the Senior investigating officers album which did not come to light or surface until the beginning of 2004, when Ewen Smith managed to obtain access to it after I found documentation referring to its existence just beforehand?

It was concealed because it would have exposed the prosecutions case as a fabrication and manipulation of the true circumstances relating to how Sheila died in the bedroom that morning...

[Moe Cassani]

This is the true explanation for how the two exact images are displayed in different contrast, colour and tone...

Blood on Sheila's neck / throat was /is wet - it is wet because either Sheila had very recently died or that someone had very recently stage managed her body, and Jeremy could not be the person involved in killing her (if that is the correct interpretation) or of stage managing her body (if that is the correct interpretation) - Jeremy is innocent, and he killed no-one, and he did not stage manage the bodies in keeping with what the prosecution suggested to the jury at his trial, it was the police who shot and killed Sheila, and it was the police who stage managed her body...

That is not the way I see it Mike,
Why could Bamber not have stage managed her body? You are relying on that photograph? From the police whom you say conspired to kill her in the first place. Why Mike are you willing to believe a photograph taken by the police but not their version of events. Do you not think for one second that if there was a conspiracy the photographs would have been the FIRST thing they would doctor? Are you suggesting that they are clever enough to orchestrate a wide, complex conspiracy but not to alter a photograph?
Mike, it is utter nonsense. The truth is being stretched to unbelievable proportions. No court in the world is ever going to buy this. Absolutely no way. This is why he has been languishing in clink for the last 27 years.

[Roch]

I would also like to add that because this particular image was one of the copies made by Michael de Stefano and the ink in his copying machine had started to run out, that my colleague retained these copies and posted them to me by email attachment a few days or weeks later ( so there is a record showing the corresponding email sent between us with this image in this condition sent by her to me on that occasion - so you could hardly call that us manipulating this particular photograph)?

Thank you for contributing Mike.  I'm still a bit confused as to how the 'wet' image came about.  Are you saying the the lower 'poor' image was a photo-copied image, with a diminishing colour cartridge, whereas the upper image is a photograph of a photograph.  Or is the 'wet' image a photo-copied image taken while the colour cartridge was still operating fully?  Sorry if I'm a bit slow on the uptake.

[Bridget]

Thank you for contributing Mike.  I'm still a bit confused as to how the 'wet' image came about.  Are you saying the the lower 'poor' image was a photo-copied image, with a diminishing colour cartridge, whereas the upper image is a photograph of a photograph.  Or is the 'wet' image a photo-copied image taken while the colour cartridge was still operating fully?  Sorry if I'm a bit slow on the uptake.

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.

[Roch]

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.

Bridget, the computer I'm on today, wont show some images.  Can you please provide me with a link to the image instead, to see if I can access it that way.  This is all getting confusing for me 

[Bridget]

http://i.imgur.com/JEcTv.jpg

[Roch]

http://i.imgur.com/JEcTv.jpg

No joy, I'll have to check later on tonight.