Grief

[grahameb]

Nope, or at least not according to Vanezis, he also said the blood on her night dress which is incorrectly being described as a hand print, was transferred from Sheilas wrist.

That was his opinion. But it certainly looks like a hand print to me from the pictures. I disagree with him for the simple reason that the blood had obviously been staunched by a hand as there are fingermarks on her neck.

[maggie]

I agree, but people can give their opinion (particularly if it is labelled as such), just as you have yourself on other subjects.

People can give any they opinion they want about anything but this is a hypothetical argument there is no answer.  IMO

That's ok Hartley, must have misunderstood you. 

[-Harters-]

People can give any they opinion they want about anything but this is a hypothetical argument there is no answer.  IMO

That's ok Hartley, must have misunderstood you. 

No worries, probably just my poor attempt at humour. 

[-Harters-]

That was his opinion. But it certainly looks like a hand print to me from the pictures. I disagree with him for the simple reason that the blood had obviously been staunched by a hand as there are fingermarks on her neck.

I don't think that his description "the palms and fingers were not contaminated with blood", could be referred to simply as an opinion, unless there is photographic evidence indicating otherwise, then I think it would be quite difficult to argue against the description given by Vanezis.

That's an interesting point regarding finger marks to Sheilas throat though, particularly given Vanezis's assertion that Sheilas fingers were not blood stained and that Dr Craig said he certified death without touching her body and no police officer claims to have touched her neck prior to it being photographed.

So if they are indeed finger marks to Sheilas throat, who do they belong to?

[mertol22]

Subjective I suppose, personally I think it's quite a fine building, despite its history.

Again I think the beauty may well be in the eye of the beholder, yes the building is listed, the parts which you refer to as extensions is actually the original 18th Century farmhouse, the formal front is the extension.
i could not really care less what part is the 1st part , it should have been flattened.
The building was actually only listed in February 1987, the National Heritage listing reads as follows:

TOLLESHUNT D'ARCY PAGES LANE TL 91 SW(west side) 3/78White House Farmhouse GVII

TOLLESHUNT D'ARCY PAGES LANE TL 91 SW (west side) 3/78 White House Farmhouse GV II House. Late C18 and early C19. Red and gault brick in Flemish bond, roofed with slate. C18 range of red brick aligned N-S with 2 axial stacks. Early C19 crosswing of gault brick at S end, forming entrance front, with internal stacks at each side. C19 single-storey extension at N end. 2 storeys. Ground floor, 2 early C19 sashes of 16 lights, first floor, 2 similar sashes and one of 12 lights, all with flat brick arches. Central C20 half-glazed door in simple flat-roofed porch with 2 columns and 3 stone steps. Low-pitched hipped roof. Reported to have date 1820 inscribed on beam in roof. White House is shown on Chapman and Andre's map of 1777, then on another site approx. 400 metres to the west. Both were built by a charity established in 1626 by Henry Smith, salter and alderman of London, to which the farm still belongs at the time of survey, May 1985 (P. Morant, The History and Antiquities of Essex, 1768, I, 399).

[mertol22]

Of course they did'nt buy them - who would be interested in buying a paper to see nude photos of someone who was murdered ? They probably were more interested in getting a story from JB....

The pictures or the story does it matter , vultures in for a penny in for a pound the lot of them.

[mertol22]

mr jam i will give you just one personal example of grief, once a little girl came up to me on a funeral i was standing next to one of the 7 seater funeral cars she said ive lost my daddy will you be my new daddy now, just one example.

[Jane]

Of course that is on the assumption IMO stands for "In my opinion" and not "Impossibly massive ostriches". 

It certainly doesn't stand for "Impeccable magnificent oration"

[-Harters-]

mr jam i will give you just one personal example of grief, once a little girl came up to me on a funeral i was standing next to one of the 7 seater funeral cars she said ive lost my daddy will you be my new daddy now, just one example.

Mertol, I'm not sure whether I should be confused or offended. 

With all due respect, you do not have the monopoly on witnessing, feeling or understanding grief, I find your example quite presumptuous and patronising.

You may feel that your life experiences have given you some sort of an insight into such matters, I'm certainly not in a position nor of a mind to disagree with you, but I think you should be wary of making assumptions about other people.

[-Harters-]

It certainly doesn't stand for "Impeccable magnificent oration"

That's quite funny, but not for the reason intended. 

[Jane]

That's quite funny, but not for the reason intended. 

Please excuse my sarcasm, Mr Jam. I'll try "Irrisistably magnetic opposites." I can think of many more, all too risque for the forum!!!

[-Harters-]

Please excuse my sarcasm, Mr Jam. I'll try "Irrisistably magnetic opposites." I can think of many more, all too risque for the forum!!!

I concede, you get the match point.   

[mertol22]

Mertol, I'm not sure whether I should be confused or offended. 

With all due respect, you do not have the monopoly on witnessing, feeling or understanding grief, I find your example quite presumptuous and patronising.

You may feel that your life experiences have given you some sort of an insight into such matters, I'm certainly not in a position nor of a mind to disagree with you, but I think you should be wary of making assumptions about other people.

and i cant stand your pompous mr right all the time so that makes us equal.
ive seen more grief than you ever will , i hold no trophy as you think i do , like every single post ever started you always ruin and find fault, given you change your username more than once you are not who you say you are are you.

[-Harters-]

and i cant stand your pompous mr right all the time so that makes us equal.

Please cut out the insults, they only end up reflecting badly upon yourself.

[grahameb]

I don't think that his description "the palms and fingers were not contaminated with blood", could be referred to simply as an opinion, unless there is photographic evidence indicating otherwise, then I think it would be quite difficult to argue against the description given by Vanezis.

That's an interesting point regarding finger marks to Sheilas throat though, particularly given Vanezis's assertion that Sheilas fingers were not blood stained and that Dr Craig said he certified death without touching her body and no police officer claims to have touched her neck prior to it being photographed.

So if they are indeed finger marks to Sheilas throat, who do they belong to?

That's a good question. But I rather feel that we look at these "experts" as if they are infallible at times? Whatever side we may belong to. For when the defence employ experts they are quickly didmissed by the ccrc experts. So in the light of that I think we also have a right to challenge their views?