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

[mike tesko]

I disagree, the photographer is standing to one side, and moves to another position to one side. As he moves towards Sheila's head the necklace becomes visible because it is actually several inches below and to the side of the barrel. I wish you'd just do the experiment.

For this explanation to be true, the shadow which runs along the full length of the barrel against the body would be different, but it is not. What you have got is use of a flashlight on the camera which produces the necessary shadow feature which you are trying to ignore because you know or must know that any shadow cast along that part of the rifle which is not in contact with the body would show up and deviate in a different direction than the main body of shadow along the length of the rifles barrel which is resting against the body...

[Patti]

I know what you mean about angles, but in this case the rifle has been moved. The difference is so vast. Look at the shadows...

Morning all. 

[mike tesko]

That photo illustrates my point perfectly. You cannot actually tell from the photo whether the ball is on the ground a foot the other side of the line, in the air directly above the line, or in the air the pitch side of the line. Can you not see that?

You are wrong again, you can clearly see that the ball has / did cross the line, because of reference to the shape, characteristics and positioning of the shadow bottom right of ball, which is consistent with the shadow position produced from the goalkeeper - shadow of ball and shadow from player are consist with each other, and prove the ball was close to the ground, and over the goal line...

[Bridget]

Using your angle theory, to try and explain how the barrel of the rifle appears to be resting against Sheila's neck, you would have to be lower down and closer to the body to displace the position of the end of the barrel higher up ( creating a sort of optical illusion if you like), but the lower you go down the bigger the gap between the body and the rifles barrel (which is not evident in photograph 27, but is shown in photograph 32) would show up. Similarly, your angle theory does not take into account the dramatic change in the shape and positioning of the bloodstain situated top right of Sheila's nightdress? Since, if you are going lower down so that you can create the impression that the end of the rifles barrel is higher up on the body, you would also be altering what you could see of the aforementioned bloodstain in 27. In my view, you would see slightly less of it, not more of it, and the characteristics of the actual stain would not alter to such an extent as it appears to have done when you compare 27 to 32? In your explanation you only rely upon angle, but I have already pointed put that the position and characteristics of the shadow along the full length of the guns barrel is consistent with the barrel resting against Sheila's neck / throat in 27, and it is consistent in 32 with the barrel not resting against her body where the end of the barrel rises up away from the body - you need to add to this the shape and position of the bloodstain on the upper nightdress...

Police moved gun its as simple as that, not only that but in one breath police say nobody touched or moved anything except Sheila's hand so that PC Bird could photograph a bloodstain on the front lower nightdress being worn by Sheila, but in the next breath DI "Ron" Cook is claiming he removed the rifle and placed it against the bedroom window where PC Bird took a photograph of it from the vantage point of the middle landing on the main stairs. So, depending upon which version of police events you choose to believe, they didn't move it, they moved it, and all this was taking place whilst PC Bird was taking his pictures of Sheila in the main bedroom. Still to be fathomed out, is who replaced the rifle which Cook had removed from Sheila's body and placed it against the bedroom window, who put it back on the body, to enable PS Woodcock to be able to remove it again from Sheila's body at 11;10am, to make it safe?

If Cook removed the rifle earlier, and put it against the bedroom window and Bird took a picture of the rifle there (23) from the vantage point of the middle landing, which Bird says was a photograph he took after his first session in the main bedroom, how could 27 and 32 have been taken before 23 with the rifle leaning against the bedroom window? So, if we take PC Birds trial testimony that he took photograph 23 (rifle leaning against window) before 27 and 32, it can only mean that somebody replaced the rifle atop Sheila's body in different positions as at 27 and 32, to try and show how Sheila could have shot herself (or not) with the rifle in the photographs?

Which came first do you think:-

Photograph 23?
photograph 27?
photograph 32?

If 23 was taken first, rifle was not on the body, until 27 and then 32...

I've said all I have to say about the position of the rifle in 27 and 32 - you can either try it for yourself, or not.

With regards the stain, the same effect applies. The stain is forshortened in 27 by the angle. It still extends from her shoulder to her elbow, but just as the barrel is forshortened, so is her upper arm.

As I said, believe the gun has been moved between those two photos if you want to, but as a theory it's going nowhere because it's easily disproven.

[mike tesko]

I disagree, the photographer is standing to one side, and moves to another position to one side. As he moves towards Sheila's head the necklace becomes visible because it is actually several inches below and to the side of the barrel. I wish you'd just do the experiment.

Photographer would have to move to one side (leftwards and lower down) in order to cast or give the impression that the position of the guns barrel was higher up the body, which would produce less of a view of the bloodstain on the upper right of nightdress - but it does not. It would also show a dramatic difference in / of the shadow cast by that part of the rifles barrel which was / is not in contact with the body, or as in this case against Sheila's neck /throat. No such deviation in the shadow is produced in 27, which proves and establishes that you are incorrect in your belief that the rifles barrel was not, is not resting against Sheila's neck / throat...

[mike tesko]

I've said all I have to say about the position of the rifle in 27 and 32 - you can either try it for yourself, or not.

With regards the stain, the same effect applies. The stain is forshortened in 27 by the angle. It still extends from her shoulder to her elbow, but just as the barrel is forshortened, so is her upper arm.

As I said, believe the gun has been moved between those two photos if you want to, but as a theory it's going nowhere because it's easily disproven.

It's not easily disproved in your favour on this occasion I am afraid. Barrel of rifle is resting against Sheila's throat / neck in 27, but not in 32, and missing from the body altogether in 26 -  I wonder why that is? I suppose your going to try to suggest it is /was missing in 26 because of the angle the photographer took that picture?

[mike tesko]

It's not easily disproved in your favour on this occasion I am afraid. Barrel of rifle is resting against Sheila's throat / neck in 27, but not in 32, and missing from the body altogether in 26 -  I wonder why that is? I suppose your going to try to suggest it is /was missing in 26 because of the angle the photographer took that picture?

Lets take it a step further...

Jeremy must have removed it in the interim period whilst he was busily stage managing the scene despite the fact he was at home in his cottage at 9 Head Street at the time giving a witness statement to that crook of a police officer "Stan" the man (I can rewrite my notebook at any time) Jones - yeah, we'll just blame Jeremy for it all, he stage managed everything and fooled the police into thinking Sheila took her own life, and everything else the police got up to in this investigation. He's a really special talent is Jeremy, capable of doing everything that the police were / are responsible for doing...

[Bridget]

Please post picture 26, otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about.

[Roch]

The difference is so vast.

It's not specsavers the Bridget needs...it's jam jars.  She'll end up looking like Olive from On the Buses at this rate.  :D

The beveled end of the rifle barrel is clearly in a completely different position in the shots.  It could not be clearer.  No amount of angle experimentation with a broom stick will make any difference whatsoever.  Bridget, sometimes your absolute stubbornness is your downfall.  It actually undermines your other good work at keeping us 'innocents' on a tight leash.

[Bridget]

It's not specsavers the Bridget needs...it's jam jars.  She'll end up looking like Olive from On the Buses at this rate.  :D

The beveled end of the rifle barrel is clearly in a completely different position in the shots.  It could not be clearer.  No amount of angle experimentation with a broom stick will make any difference whatsoever.  Bridget, sometimes your absolute stubbornness is your downfall.  It actually undermines your other good work at keeping us 'innocents' on a tight leash.

Feel free to continue this particular wild goose chase then, it's no skin off my nose.

[mike tesko]

Please post picture 26, otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about.

That is a very good point, if you don't get to see photograph 26, you have no idea what I am talking about?

Well, imagine how Jeremy and his legal team must have felt or be feeling because they did not get to see photograph 26 before or during his trial in October 1986, nor did the jury which tried this matter, nor did the court of appeal which dealt with the failed appeal of 2002...

But they did get to see 23...



"So, did PC Bird, take 23 before 27 and 32"?

[susan]

Morning Bridget are they implying your eyesight is not good

[Bridget]

That is a very good point, if you don't get to see photograph 26, you have no idea what I am talking about?

Well, imagine how Jeremy and his legal team must have felt or be feeling because they did not get to see photograph 26 before or during his trial in October 1986, nor did the jury which tried this matter, nor did the court of appeal which dealt with the failed appeal of 2002...

But they did get to see 23...

Please post picture 26.

Morning Bridget are they implying your eyesight is not good

Morning Susan , I think this has more to do with awareness of spatial relationships than eyesight, but if that's what floats their boat...

[lookout]

I know one thing,,that if a schizophrenic approached me and told me he/she wanted their children dead,,,as was told to the psychiatrist at St Andrews Hospital,, by Sheila,,,,I wouldn't have just sat back making notes.! Sheila had also stated to him/her that her boys were the " devils children ". Usual spiel.
This was in the March of that same year,,1985.
I'm sorry,,folks,,but had I been the doctor/psychiatrist and a sick person also spoke about one of the children who was going to rape and murder her,,,I'd have sectioned her there and then and avoided the terrible tragedy that happened.
Never underestimate the threats of a schizophrenic.
The biggest problem back then was the fact that nobody knew anything at all about the behaviour nor actions of a person so very ill. 

[grahameb]

See case related photos ms11.jpg and ms 12.jp for comparison.