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

[Roch]

Patti / Mike.  I cant view some images on the computer I'm on.  Go to reply 57 and please check which position the rifle is in both images (which is very probably the same photo but not defintely the same photo).  Is the barrel higher or lower in either or both of those images?

[Bridget]

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?

I'm not sure that these photos show changes in position of the rifle at all, the apparent differences appear to be down to a change in the angle of the shot. I think they both show the rifle in the lower position, but if the don't, then it's in the higher position in the photo we've been discussing.

The numbers on these photos appear to be court album numbers, is that correct?

[mike tesko]

I'm not sure that these photos show changes in position of the rifle at all, the apparent differences appear to be down to a change in the angle of the shot. I think they both show the rifle in the lower position, but if the don't, then it's in the higher position in the photo we've been discussing.

The numbers on these photos appear to be court album numbers, is that correct?

No...

Stop trying to twist this into a case of these photographs, (27 and 32) must have formed part and parcel of the court album (223), when they were not disclosed at all to the defence, or to the court which tried the case in October 1986. These two pictures (27 and 32) formed part and parcel of the deliberately withheld senior investigating officers album (581) which did not surface until the beginning of 2004...

[Patti]

Patti / Mike.  I cant view some images on the computer I'm on.  Go to reply 57 and please check which position the rifle is in both images (which is very probably the same photo but not defintely the same photo).  Is the barrel higher or lower in either or both of those images?

Hi Roch. I think they are from the same negative. One which has been developed properly and the other is a zoomed in image making the resolution hazy....they look the same to me...but maybe the blurred one is poorly done...having had take and scanned spoils the image. That is my opinion any way....

[Roch]

Hi Roch. I think they are from the same negative. One which has been developed properly and the other is a zoomed in image making the resolution hazy....they look the same to me...but maybe the blurred one is poorly done...having had take and scanned spoils the image. That is my opinion any way....

Thanks Patti.  Is the barrel / muzzle in the higher or lower position?  Is it past her neck or underneath her chin?

[Bridget]

No...

Stop trying to twist this into a case of these photographs, (27 and 32) must have formed part and parcel of the court album (223), when they were not disclosed at all to the defence, or to the court which tried the case in October 1986. These two pictures (27 and 32) formed part and parcel of the deliberately withheld senior investigating officers album (581) which did not surface until the beginning of 2004...

The numbers of those photos fit with the court album list produced by Jeremy. They don't fit with the master copy album numbers, and I'm not convinced that they would use a different numbering system in the SIO album. I know you're going to disagree with me, but I believe these photos are from the court album, and are also among the ones examined by McDonell (or whatever his name was) in 1992.

[Patti]

No...

Stop trying to twist this into a case of these photographs, (27 and 32) must have formed part and parcel of the court album (223), when they were not disclosed at all to the defence, or to the court which tried the case in October 1986. These two pictures (27 and 32) formed part and parcel of the deliberately withheld senior investigating officers album (581) which did not surface until the beginning of 2004...

I agree Mike there was no mention of the rifle being moved in the 2002 appeal. Therefore the photo's should be classed as new evidence but we know the CCRC don't we....

[Patti]

Thanks Patti.  Is the barrel / muzzle in the higher or lower position?  Is it past her neck or underneath her chin?

Hi Roch if you are talking about the images in conversation number 57 then the rifle appears to be in the same place on both images....

When I said that the rifle was different in each shot I was talking about the photo's 27 and 32....the rifle is definitely different in both images....I have only had a slurp...as yet...lol 

[Roch]

Hi Roch if you are talking about the images in conversation number 57 then the rifle appears to be in the same place on both images....

When I said that the rifle was different in each shot I was talking about the photo's 27 and 32....the rifle is definitely different in both images....I have only had a slurp...as yet...lol 

Yes thanks, re your first point... is it in the higher position past her neck or the lower position underneath her chin?  Higher or lower?

Re your second point, I don't think it is likely that the police would disclose to the defence, different photographs with the rifle in different positions.  Nor is it likely the defence could have missed such a glaringly obvious inconsistancy.

[Jane]

Hi Roch if you are talking about the images in conversation number 57 then the rifle appears to be in the same place on both images....

When I said that the rifle was different in each shot I was talking about the photo's 27 and 32....the rifle is definitely different in both images....I have only had a slurp...as yet...lol 

I will verify that, Patti. In one image it almost appears that the rifle is pushed into her chin, in the other it seems closer to the base of her throat. I think that in both shots her arm is in the same position. I will have to go back and check, but if I'm correct wouldn't the different positions of the rifle require her arm to altet position?

[Patti]

Yes thanks, re your first point... is it in the higher position past her neck or the lower position underneath her chin?  Higher or lower?

Re your second point, I don't think it is likely that the police would disclose to the defence, different photographs with the rifle in different positions.  Nor is it likely the defence could have missed such a glaringly obvious inconsistancy.

It is in the higher position Roch. which suggest the rifle had already been moved...I think this is what you are getting at....this could suggest that it had certainly been moved after the 2nd shot...

I am not sure if the movement of the rifle was brought up in the original trial. It wasn't brought up in the 2002 appeal nor the 1991 appeal.  I think its from part of the new evidence that was presented by criminologist Mark Williams-Thomas. I could be wrong of course...Do you want me to check? 

[Patti]

I will verify that, Patti. In one image it almost appears that the rifle is pushed into her chin, in the other it seems closer to the base of her throat. I think that in both shots her arm is in the same position. I will have to go back and check, but if I'm correct wouldn't the different positions of the rifle require her arm to altet position?

Hey April...Nice to see you....Look at the images on conversation 57...I think the rifle is in the same position.

Then look at the numbered photo's  27 and 32.    The rifle is in a different position in each shot.   

[Roch]

It is in the higher position Roch. which suggest the rifle had already been moved...I think this is what you are getting at....this could suggest that it had certainly been moved after the 2nd shot...

I am not sure if the movement of the rifle was brought up in the original trial. It wasn't brought up in the 2002 appeal nor the 1991 appeal.  I think its from part of the new evidence that was presented by criminologist Mark Williams-Thomas. I could be wrong of course...Do you want me to check? 

OK thanks Patti, I'm trying to work this out.  Am I right in stating that there are no 'wet' blood photos on this forum with the rifle in the lower position?

[Bridget]

OK thanks Patti, I'm trying to work this out.  Am I right in stating that there are no 'wet' blood photos on this forum with the rifle in the lower position?

There is only one 'wet blood'photo as far as I'm aware, what are you struggling with?

[Patti]

There is only one 'wet blood'photo as far as I'm aware, what are you struggling with?

Not correct my dear Bridget, for if one is wet they are all wet....It is that the one that we see in true colour has been developed from a negative...in high resolution...

If you think there is only one wet one, then that wet one was taken after the rifle had been moved....which could suggest that she had recently been shot....

Hello btw...X