Order that PC Bird took photographs at the scene (7th August 1985)?

[lookout]

Because it wasn't venous blood,Bridget. ( pumping )

Only oxygenated blood is bright red,,as Mike explained,,,it goes a dark reddy/brown when it's stopped pumping,within 15 minutes or so. Hours later,like Sheila was supposed to have been lying on the floor,the blood would have looked black and not bright red as the pics show. Which would have indicated that she hadn't been dead that long as people may have thought.

I'll say it again. I find it quite odd that not one of the deceased was given a time of death. It's usually one of the first details recorded/logged for investigation purposes. It's very bad detecting work.

[Bridget]

Attention has been drawn to the fact that although it appears to show wet looking blood running and leaking and pouring from the two wounds, and the sides of Sheila's mouth (in one close up photograph), that in others, the same blood appears dried, half dried, and or coagulated?

This can easily be explained away, since what took place was that the police photographer used a tripod and focussed on the area on Sheila's throat at a time when the blood which was oozing from the wounds and her mouth, was still relatively wet looking. At this stage / time the photographer took a photograph. Then there was some sort of a delay whilst the blood spoken about had coagulated, which could have been taken as soon as 15 minutes or so had elapsed, and after which once the necessary time had elapsed the photographer simply zoomed back out and took another photograph from the exact same angle. This produced a photograph from that angle which showed the blood had coagulated, and had started to crack, or whatever...

The police therefore ended up with two images from the same angle, although one was a close up shot of the wet looking blood running, leaking and pouring from the wounds (etc...), whilst the other showed the same areas of blood, dried, and coagulated...

My understanding, is that when GDS represented Jeremy, that he sought expert opinion (In Italy) about how long it would take the blood to dry and start to coagulate once the heart had stopped beating, and the expert made a report, stating that there would be no oxygen in the blood, after 15 minutes or so, and at that stage the blood would start to go off, and dry, so to speak...

So what you are saying now is that Bird took photo 23, then someone shot her (accidentally), then Bird set up a tripod and took the red wet blood photo, waited until the blood dried (it may coagulate after 15minutes but would take a substantially longer time to dry to the extent that it would crack up), then returned and took photos 27 and 28, then possible others including 32 and 33.

Alternatively, the red blood photo, photo 27 and photo 28 are all prints from the same negative, and it's only now that you have produced photo 28 that we can clearly see that the blood on Sheila's face is in fact dry. Sheila had clearly been dead for some time when photo 27/28/red blood was taken, which is entirely consistant with the police officers' evidence, and that of Dr Craig.

[mike tesko]

It is bad enough that police officers were fooling around at the scene with the bodies of the five victims still in situ, but for one of the victims to then be shot as a result of such pranks being carried out, was something that Essex police were not prepared to hold their hands up to - this is what they sought to cover up, it was never intended to be a case of the police framing Jeremy by stage managing the scene in the manner that they did, it was all about self preservation. Imagine if it had come out that whilst were fooling around at the crime scene with the bodies of the victims still in  situ, that one of the victims (Sheila)  had been shot by a loaded rifle taken from the bedroom window, and placed on her body? I know there are some amongst you who do not believe that this did happen, even though it did. But imagine that it did, how many of you would say that it would have been the easiest thing in the world for the police to own up to, if that is what they did, and what had taken place? The police are not in th habit of doing their dirty washing in public places. It would have been normal and natural for the police to try to cover up what took place, and that is precisely what did take place. Sheila was shot under the chin by a bullet fired from the rifle that WPC Julia Jeapes had seen leaning against the bedroom window at about 7:15am, before the six man raid team had even set off to enter the premises - Stop deluding yourselves into thinking that the rifle she saw was never leaning against that window, because it was, and what is more there were only three rifles known to be kept and which should have been present inside the farmhouse, one was the family owned anshulz rifle, another was Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle, and the other was the .22 air rifle. Now, according to the police case, the raid team found Sheila's body on the floor next to the bed with the family owned anshulz rifle a top it. If true, and there was only one rifle found in the bedroom and there was no rifle leaning up against the bedroom window by that stage, then how did that rifle get from the window at say 7:15am, onto Sheila's body in less than an hour later? How could Jeremy or anybody else have moved the rifle from the window onto the body in that short space of time, without even being present inside the farmhouse? If the anshulz rifle was on Sheila's body as claimed ( and if you believe that you will fall for any old story just so long as a policeman says it) what happened to the rifle which WPC Julia Jeapes saw at the window? This is a crucial feature of the evidence which helps to determine that Jeremy Bamber did not and could not have shot his sister Sheila in the bedroom and stage managed her body there by placing the rifle a top it so as to fool police into thinking, that she took her own life. Fact is, he simply could not have done that in the now known circumstances of the case, he could not have done that because he had no opportunity to move the rifle from the window onto the body in less than an hour that it took for it to be displaced from one pace to the other and end up on her body in time for the raid team to find Sheila on the floor with the rifle on her....

The police version of events is all lies....

[Bridget]

Only oxygenated blood is bright red,,as Mike explained,,,it goes a dark reddy/brown when it's stopped pumping,within 15 minutes or so. Hours later,like Sheila was supposed to have been lying on the floor,the blood would have looked black and not bright red as the pics show. Which would have indicated that she hadn't been dead that long as people may have thought.

I'll say it again. I find it quite odd that not one of the deceased was given a time of death. It's usually one of the first details recorded/logged for investigation purposes. It's very bad detecting work.

I'm not talking about the colour of it, I'm talking about the fact that it is completely dry.

[Roch]

Attention has been drawn to the fact that although it appears to show wet looking blood running and leaking and pouring from the two wounds, and the sides of Sheila's mouth (in one close up photograph), that in others, the same blood appears dried, half dried, and or coagulated?

This can easily be explained away, since what took place was that the police photographer used a tripod and focussed on the area on Sheila's throat at a time when the blood which was oozing from the wounds and her mouth, was still relatively wet looking. At this stage / time the photographer took a photograph. Then there was some sort of a delay whilst the blood spoken about had coagulated, which could have been taken as soon as 15 minutes or so had elapsed, and after which once the necessary time had elapsed the photographer simply zoomed back out and took another photograph from the exact same angle. This produced a photograph from that angle which showed the blood had coagulated, and had started to crack, or whatever...

The police therefore ended up with two images from the same angle, although one was a close up shot of the wet looking blood running, leaking and pouring from the wounds (etc...), whilst the other showed the same areas of blood, dried, and coagulated...

My understanding, is that when GDS represented Jeremy, that he sought expert opinion (In Italy) about how long it would take the blood to dry and start to coagulate once the heart had stopped beating, and the expert made a report, stating that there would be no oxygen in the blood, after 15 minutes or so, and at that stage the blood would start to go off, and dry, so to speak...

Mike, the tripod theory is a bit sketchy, don't you think?  There is no evidence for it.  Also, on the vivid wet blood photo close up, we cannot see the blood which emanates from the mouth, to check if it looks less coagulated than it does in the less vivid photographs.

Might that contradict their other report?  The one that places her death not superior to two hours of being discovered

[lookout]

Mike it's disgusting,,but I had an idea that there'd been some " acting ",,judging by Nevill and the coal scuttle. Sorry,,but a cadaver doesn't suddenly fall head first into a vessel. Like the rifle,,it was placed there,,or Nevill was helped into it just because it happened to be there.
The whole thing was conducted so irreverently,it just beggars belief how some people can treat the dead.

[lookout]

I'm not talking about the colour of it, I'm talking about the fact that it is completely dry.

Not all of it was completely dry Bridget. Only the surface blood,perhaps,,which,if thin enough,will dry.

[maggie]

I'm not talking about the colour of it, I'm talking about the fact that it is completely dry.

Yes Bridget, but the blood would only have flowed out of the sides of Sheila's mouth when her head was moved and tilted for some reason.  If she was left lying still in that position after the initial movement when she was shot, the blood would run down her throat.  Lying flat on the floor with her head back would open her airway enough for the blood to escape down her thoat as it finds gravity.  So only the initial blood would be on her face.  This would have formed a dry coating quite quickly. imo

[mike tesko]

So what you are saying now is that Bird took photo 23, then someone shot her (accidentally), then Bird set up a tripod and took the red wet blood photo, waited until the blood dried (it may coagulate after 15minutes but would take a substantially longer time to dry to the extent that it would crack up), then returned and took photos 27 and 28, then possible others including 32 and 33.

Alternatively, the red blood photo, photo 27 and photo 28 are all prints from the same negative, and it's only now that you have produced photo 28 that we can clearly see that the blood on Sheila's face is in fact dry. Sheila had clearly been dead for some time when photo 27/28/red blood was taken, which is entirely consistant with the police officers' evidence, and that of Dr Craig.

You are confusing yourself, and trying to be deliberately obstructive...

The facts speak for themselves, the photographic evidence has been doctored, and the jury which tried this case have been deliberately deceived about when certain crucial photographs were taken by PC Bird, who literally hasn't got a clue what he's saying from one moment to the other, and he finds himself in this position because negative strips have been cut and vital photographs taken out of the loop to prevent it being used to prosecute himself and the others involved in the conspiracy relating to the shooting of Sheila with the loaded rifle from the window whilst police were fooling around and playing pranks at the scene with the bodies of the victims still in situ...

Now, you can throw all sorts of thoeries into the equation about which photo' has fresh blood and which doesn't and try to use what your saying to try to undermine what took place, but I have two questions to put to you, or at least two requests that hopefully will shut you up and stop you being so obstructive..

Firstly, please tell me the photograph number of the following close up image?



And before you say anything to the contrary, it is not simply an enlargement from one of the other photographs, but a photograph that was taken at the scene by PC bird, zoomed in...

So, please tell me which photograph number it has, and which negative strip this image was taken upon?

[Roch]

if you believe that you will fall for any old story... just so long as a policeman says it.

I do think that this is the approach naturally taken by some posters on here.  I regard it as 'Dixon of Dock Green' syndrome.

[mike tesko]

You are confusing yourself, and trying to be deliberately obstructive...

The facts speak for themselves, the photographic evidence has been doctored, and the jury which tried this case have been deliberately deceived about when certain crucial photographs were taken by PC Bird, who literally hasn't got a clue what he's saying from one moment to the other, and he finds himself in this position because negative strips have been cut and vital photographs taken out of the loop to prevent it being used to prosecute himself and the others involved in the conspiracy relating to the shooting of Sheila with the loaded rifle from the window whilst police were fooling around and playing pranks at the scene with the bodies of the victims still in situ...

Now, you can throw all sorts of thoeries into the equation about which photo' has fresh blood and which doesn't and try to use what your saying to try to undermine what took place, but I have two questions to put to you, or at least two requests that hopefully will shut you up and stop you being so obstructive..

Firstly, please tell me the photograph number of the following close up image?



And before you say anything to the contrary, it is not simply an enlargement from one of the other photographs, but a photograph that was taken at the scene by PC bird, zoomed in...

So, please tell me which photograph number it has, and which negative strip this image was taken upon?

Next request...

Please demonstrate to me, how anyone can alter the dark dried looking blood on Sheila's face and neck, and make it look like it is wet ,looking blood, without dramatically altering the tone/contrast of the skin colour, and the colour of her nightdress and surrounding area in the same photograph? Just do it and post the results to me, for me to look at - you will not be able to do this without me being able to spot what has been done (I can assure you)...

Here, start with this one:-

[mike tesko]

Not all of it was completely dry Bridget. Only the surface blood,perhaps,,which,if thin enough,will dry.

I agree with this, the blood which ran from the sides of the mouth might only have been a very thin line of blood which would change in its consistency very quickly as opposed to the blood from the upper entry wound which had a continual flow for several minutes at a time?

[mike tesko]

Yes Bridget, but the blood would only have flowed out of the sides of Sheila's mouth when her head was moved and tilted for some reason.  If she was left lying still in that position after the initial movement when she was shot, the blood would run down her throat.  Lying flat on the floor with her head back would open her airway enough for the blood to escape down her thoat as it finds gravity.  So only the initial blood would be on her face.  This would have formed a dry coating quite quickly. imo

I agree...

[mike tesko]

You are confusing yourself, and trying to be deliberately obstructive...

The facts speak for themselves, the photographic evidence has been doctored, and the jury which tried this case have been deliberately deceived about when certain crucial photographs were taken by PC Bird, who literally hasn't got a clue what he's saying from one moment to the other, and he finds himself in this position because negative strips have been cut and vital photographs taken out of the loop to prevent it being used to prosecute himself and the others involved in the conspiracy relating to the shooting of Sheila with the loaded rifle from the window whilst police were fooling around and playing pranks at the scene with the bodies of the victims still in situ...

Now, you can throw all sorts of thoeries into the equation about which photo' has fresh blood and which doesn't and try to use what your saying to try to undermine what took place, but I have two questions to put to you, or at least two requests that hopefully will shut you up and stop you being so obstructive..

Firstly, please tell me the photograph number of the following close up image?



And before you say anything to the contrary, it is not simply an enlargement from one of the other photographs, but a photograph that was taken at the scene by PC bird, zoomed in...

So, please tell me which photograph number it has, and which negative strip this image was taken upon?

Can you take the wet looking blood in this image (above) and change it so that it looks dark, dried and coagulated without effecting the tone/contrast of the skin etc..

Thanks in anticipation, I look forward to seeing your experiment results with great interest?

[mike tesko]

So what you are saying now is that Bird took photo 23, then someone shot her (accidentally), then Bird set up a tripod and took the red wet blood photo, waited until the blood dried (it may coagulate after 15minutes but would take a substantially longer time to dry to the extent that it would crack up), then returned and took photos 27 and 28, then possible others including 32 and 33.

Alternatively, the red blood photo, photo 27 and photo 28 are all prints from the same negative, and it's only now that you have produced photo 28 that we can clearly see that the blood on Sheila's face is in fact dry. Sheila had clearly been dead for some time when photo 27/28/red blood was taken, which is entirely consistant with the police officers' evidence, and that of Dr Craig.

Please tell me in what order of the true sequence of events or chronological order, that photo' 28 was taken? You also forget to mention that in photo' 28 the barrel of the rifle is against Sheila's neck, whereas, in 32 it is not? Do you think 28 was taken before 32, or vice versa?