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

[mike tesko]

And where in the grand scheme of things was the photographs of Sheila on the bed, with no rifle on her body, and no blood running, or pouring, and leaking from the corners of her mouth, taken?  Was this after photo' 23 was taken, or before?

[mike tesko]

And where in the grand scheme of things was the photographs of Sheila on the bed, with no rifle on her body, and no blood running, or pouring, and leaking from the corners of her mouth, taken?  Was this after photo' 23 was taken, or before?

So, we have (a) - Sheila on the bed with no rifle on her body, no blood running, leaking or pouring from the corners of her mouth, and (b) - another set of photographs (27, 28, 32 and 33) with the rifle now on her body with its barrel in different positions against her throat, and (c) - we have a rifle that is / was photographed leaning up against the bedroom window (23)?

So, which set of pictures was taken first to last, do you think?

Well, I'll give you a clue, (a) was taken before (b) -  but where does (c) fit into the equation, before (a)? Before (b)? Or in between (a) and (b)?

[mike tesko]

So...

According to all we have seen thus far, PC Bird produced one photographic album, identified by exhibit mark DB/9 (in time for the trial which took place in October 1986, and a further three albums in December 2001 which he handed to the COLP investigators, identifiable by the exhibit marks of DB/100, DB/101 and DB/103:-




I wonder what his exhibit DB/102 was / is?

[Bridget]

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

No, it's dry to the extent that it's cracking up and flaking.

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 that the blood on her cheek got there when she was shot for the second time, and spilled as a result of what was probably her last movement. You can see from the photo how much spilt, it is what I would describe as a fairly thick rivulet and would have taken some time to dry IMO. My OH is always cutting himself, next time it happens I'll make him leave it and time it

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?

It is a blow up from the same negative as photo 27 which has been enhanced by the newspaper / media.

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:-

The tone / contrast of the skin colour and nightdress has been dramatically altered when compared to your photos of photos. The difference will probably be less when compared to a print taken directly from the negative.

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?

Probably, given a few hours with Photoshop, but I don't need to because the tone / contrast of the skin has clearly altered dramatically when they produced the 'red' photo, so clearly they weren't so careful.

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?

The barrel of the gun isn't against her neck in any of the photos, it's physically impossible for it to have been. Photo 28 is a blow up of photo 27, which according to Bird was taken after photo 33, and before photo 32.

And where in the grand scheme of things was the photographs of Sheila on the bed, with no rifle on her body, and no blood running, or pouring, and leaking from the corners of her mouth, taken?  Was this after photo' 23 was taken, or before?

In my grand scheme of things there are no photos of Sheila on the bed, unless they were taken just prior to her removal, which would be after 23 was taken.

[mike tesko]

It is a blow up from the same negative as photo 27 which has been enhanced by the newspaper / media.


The barrel of the gun isn't against her neck in any of the photos, it's physically impossible for it to have been. Photo 28 is a blow up of photo 27, which according to Bird was taken after photo 33, and before photo 32.

Funny how the coloured photo is not from the same negative as 27, but that it has a negative number of its own, so that puts the dampers on that part of your theory...

And the barrel in 28 is against Sheila's neck, there can be no doubt about that / this at all, there is no way you can alter the position of the rifle as shown against the neck in 28, by altering position to take a different photograph which shows it has moved to any significant extent, sorry it can't be done...


 

 

[mike tesko]

The barrel of the gun isn't against her neck in any of the photos, it's physically impossible for it to have been. Photo 28 is a blow up of photo 27, which according to Bird was taken after photo 33, and before photo 32.

So...

if there were 10 negatives to each negative strip, and PC Bird took the photographs in the order you say, he says he took them, which negative strip did he take photographs 27, 28, 32 and 33, on? Third negative strip in use, or fourth?

[mike tesko]

In my grand scheme of things there are no photos of Sheila on the bed, unless they were taken just prior to her removal, which would be after 23 was taken.

You got a problem there with that theory, since there is no blood running and leaking or pouring from the corners of Sheila's mouth when she was photographed on the bed...

[lookout]

Try,as the police might,but it was impossible to get an alignment of the rifle against Sheilas' neck. Rifles don't bend,,and neither does a body when it's stiff.
Didn't they try hard.?? But we know it didn't work like that,,,though in their own fashion,for the privilege of the misled jury, they made it work.! Oh how they elaborated.

[mike tesko]

And how does the order which you say he says he took those photographs in, sit with the other schedule that he produced purporting to show which rooms he took photographs in?



How could the police photograph the body of Sheila on the bed, with no rifle and no blood coming from the corners of her mouth, when according to PC Birds own schedule (above) , he did not revisit the main bedroom to take such a photograph of Sheila on the bed before her body was taken away to the mortuary?

[mike tesko]

And how does the order which you say he says he took those photographs in, sit with the other schedule that he produced purporting to show which rooms he took photographs in?



How could the police photograph the body of Sheila on the bed, with no rifle and no blood coming from the corners of her mouth, when according to PC Birds own schedule (above) , he did not revisit the main bedroom to take such a photograph of Sheila on the bed before her body was taken away to the mortuary?

I would like to see a record of the negative numbers that were used when he first went and took pictures in different rooms at the scene 9which for some inexplicable reason do not accompany any of the photographs in any of the albums...

Very, very dodgy evidence is / was this photographic evidence, very dodgy indeed, in fact so much has been going on with falsifying the photographic records that it was / is criminal what the police have got up to...

[Bridget]

Funny how the coloured photo is not from the same negative as 27, but that it has a negative number of its own, so that puts the dampers on that part of your theory...

You don't have a schedule of the negative numbers, so you can't possibly know that.

And the barrel in 28 is against Sheila's neck, there can be no doubt about that / this at all, there is no way you can alter the position of the rifle as shown against the neck in 28, by altering position to take a different photograph which shows it has moved to any significant extent, sorry it can't be done...

It isn't against her neck, that is physically impossible. It's an optical illusion, and yes it can be done, I've done it.

So...

if there were 10 negatives to each negative strip, and PC Bird took the photographs in the order you say, he says he took them, which negative strip did he take photographs 27, 28, 32 and 33, on? Third negative strip in use, or fourth?

I have no idea, and neither do you.

You got a problem there with that theory, since there is no blood running and leaking or pouring from the corners of Sheila's mouth when she was photographed on the bed...

I'll be blunt, I don't believe the photo you describe exists. Feel free to prove me wrong and post it.

And how does the order which you say he says he took those photographs in, sit with the other schedule that he produced purporting to show which rooms he took photographs in?

Perfectly.

How could the police photograph the body of Sheila on the bed, with no rifle and no blood coming from the corners of her mouth, when according to PC Birds own schedule (above) , he did not revisit the main bedroom to take such a photograph of Sheila on the bed before her body was taken away to the mortuary?

They didn't.

I would like to see a record of the negative numbers that were used when he first went and took pictures in different rooms at the scene 9which for some inexplicable reason do not accompany any of the photographs in any of the albums...

So would I.

[andrea]

Mike, do you think that EP have conspired to frame Bamber to cover for the fact that they delivered the 2nd shot? if so, wouldnt it just have been easier to go along with the murder suicide theory?

[mertol22]

Mike, do you think that EP have conspired to frame Bamber to cover for the fact that they delivered the 2nd shot? if so, wouldnt it just have been easier to go along with the murder suicide theory?

Hello Andrea, A good post, a columbo moment coming up here but i find it  odd that the police were satisfied at the early stages that it was 4 murders and a suicide , as we know this soon changed, i thought the police would want to keep it that way but now became very interested from the moment the silencer was found, a silencer which cannot be proven was in the location found on that morning of 7th August 1985.

[andrea]

We have statements to say where it was found, some believe it, others dont. I dont believe for a moment the police shot Sheila though. Even if they had, they would have been justified in doing so.

[mertol22]

We have statements to say where it was found, some believe it, others dont. I dont believe for a moment the police shot Sheila though. Even if they had, they would have been justified in doing so.

Nor do i think Sheila was shot by the raid team for 1 reason, upon storming the rear entrance they must have given oral warnings inside to the effect of armed officers/police, no single armed officer at no point would have been on their own at the point of storming Sheila would have been shot in a instant if she tried any struggle with the rifle, a check would have been made on the outward and return with the firearms/ammunition of all armed officers,upon storming whf no one was living as i see it.