PS Saxby - the unanswered question:-

[Jane]

I don't know what Knight's evidence was, Mike hasn't posted his report yet. There's certainly no mention of a difference of opinion with regards the laceration of the jugular vein, although they may have disagreed over what she would have been capable of after the injury. I don't but the plug / healing theory, but I'm not a pathologist so I'd like to see what Knight had to say. All I can find online about his evidence is some testimony he gave at trial with regards parental killings and ritual cleansing. There is a brief summary of his evidence in the 2002 appeal:

91. Professor Knight, another defence witness, lent support to Dr Bradley's evidence as to the feature of excessive violence in parental killings. He also spoke of instances where the murderer (having killed their spouses in most cases) has then gone about some mundane or "ritualistic" task, such as cleaning up before committing suicide. In cross-examination he accepted the proposition contained in an article, which he himself had written some years earlier, that "women almost never commit suicide by shooting".

Thanks for that, Bridget, but I MUST challenge his assertion that "women almost never commit suicide by shooting". Most women contemplating suicide probably don't have access to guns, but for those who do, I imagine it would be the method of choice

[Bridget]

So for some reason, far much more blood exited from the second fatal shot than did from the initial non-fatal shot, which allegedly preceeded it by a few seconds?  Upon close inspection of the crime scene photo,  the initial non-fatal shot doesn't look like it occured only a few seconds before the other shot to me.

Well you're not a pathologist either...

With regards the amount of blood from each wound, I don't really see how you can say that there was more from the second wound. Prof. Herbert Leon McDonnell's report describes a "large quantity of blood that had pooled between her right arm and her body", and this blood can only have come from the first wound since she was prostrate when she received the second.

[Roch]

Well you're not a pathologist either...

With regards the amount of blood from each wound, I don't really see how you can say that there was more from the second wound. Prof. Herbert Leon McDonnell's report describes a "large quantity of blood that had pooled between her right arm and her body", and this blood can only have come from the first wound since she was prostrate when she received the second.

Then why is there a gap in the trail of blood from the first wound, to where there is a streak of blood which appears to be a mirror image of the streak of blood from the fatal wound?

[Bridget]

Then why is there a gap in the trail of blood from the first wound, to where there is a streak of blood which appears to be a mirror image of the streak of blood from the fatal wound?

It would help if you'd post a picture so I can see what you mean, but probably because when she received the first wound she was semi upright but slouched to one side.

[Roch]

It would help if you'd post a picture so I can see what you mean, but probably because when she received the first wound she was semi upright but slouched to one side.

Several people on the forum have suggested that the lower stream of blood is a mirror imprint of the upper stream of blood, caused by her head lolling forward / upward in a reflex action due to the second shot.  In other words, if her head does not loll forwards, there would be no streak of blood present, adjacent to the first wound.  You can see the gap I am referring to, it is a thinning in width, of the lower streak, right next to the wound.

Anyway, I think we are getting away from Saxby's unanswered question somewhat. 

[mike tesko]

Think about the angle and trajectory taken by each bullet...

[Nickos]

Think about the angle and trajectory taken by each bullet...

I have, and I believe the first shot was made at an angle that would have someone other than SC holding the gun!!

And again, why would SC try and take her own life with what was a risky (from an instant death point of view) and initially non-fatal shot to her throat (having allegedly shot all her victims clinically in the head)?

Why did SC not make the first shot under her chin and into her brain?

[Nickos]

I think that's a disingenuous approach.  Firstly, we do not know what was discussed behind the scenes pre-trial and during trial.  Could Rivlin have got wind of the likelihood that he would meet with a brick wall of denial if he pursued it? The defence had no documentary evidence of the sighting (according to the Hunter manuscript, it was only many years later and after the logs had came to light, with subsequent official requests made by the defence for the corresponding page of the logs relevant to this period, that the official response received from EP was that it has been 'misplaced').

Also, what has Bews done since trial, to deny or rectify a mistaken claim that he had indeed seen a trick of the light?  Has Bews tried to describe the incident in terms that would contradict the trick of the light scenario?

Regarding Bews testimony.  I'm not sure that it's fair to describe him as not the sharpest tool in the box.  However I think it's stretching it a bit to consider that he might have coughed up to a sighting of a person at the window.  He would have effectively been contradicting the entire thrust of the second investigation, its' aims and its' orchestration by powers considerably senior to him self. 

Wasn't that the very danger that DCI Taff Jones represented?

Let me turn this another way:

Did Rivlin at trial ever question JB on this subject - prompting JB with a question such as "when PC's Bews, Myall and yourself "ran" from the farmhouse, having seen what PC Bews has agreed with my comment was a trick of the light, was this in your opinion a person seen at the window?

JB's answer: Yes!

This would have at least established the possibility of a figure at the window in the minds of the Jury - and it is my understanding, after putting it to Bews, the point was never raised at trial again by Rivlin.

So to Rivlin this imo was a non-point!

[mike tesko]

Let me turn this another way:

Did Rivlin at trial ever question JB on this subject - prompting JB with a question such as "when PC's Bews, Myall and yourself "ran" from the farmhouse, having seen what PC Bews has agreed with my comment was a trick of the light, was this in your opinion a person seen at the window?

JB's answer: Yes!

This would have at least established the possibility of a figure at the window in the minds of the Jury - and it is my understanding, after putting it to Bews, the point was never raised at trial again by Rivlin.

So to Rivlin this imo was a non-point!

Errors made by Rivlin, does not prove there was no person at the bedroom window...

If Essex police released all the information about what Bews spoke about to the control room upon the jaunt into the grounds of whf with Myall and Jeremy, and every other communication which followed on from that up to and including the deployment of the firearms team, we would soon get to the bottom of this...

[mike tesko]

Although some 27 years have rlapded since Bews recounted what they had just witnessed and an accompanying request to deploy the firearms officers to the scene, no information has ever been given about what Bews said, who he said it to, who that person contacted and what that person said to the other person, Essex police and Bews in particular act and carry on as though it was dome sort of psychic event that us mere mortals wouldn't be able to fathom out or understand - we are left to imagine that nothing was said about what they had all just seen, and that the firearms team turned up at the scene without anybody saying anything at all to them...

[Nickos]

Errors made by Rivlin, does not prove there was no person at the bedroom window...If Essex police released all the information about what Bews spoke about to the control room upon the jaunt into the grounds of whf with Myall and Jeremy, and every other communication which followed on from that up to and including the deployment of the firearms team, we would soon get to the bottom of this...

I don't think it will ever be proved that a figure was, or was not, at the window (but I am more inclined to believe there was never an actual sighting of a person at the window - just my op.)

However; I think we can all agree that an incident referred to by Rivlin at trial, and subsequently EP, as a trick of the light (totl) was known prior to trial (or Rivlin would not have referred to it at trial).

The trial was JB's and Rivlins opportunity to raise this subject, and to at least persuade/influence the Jury into an alternative story, other than totl, and both JB and Rivlin failed to grasp the significance of this 

My point is that an educated barrister such as Rivlin either, rather strangely, believed that JB (+EP) seeing a figure at the window had no substance  , or he didn't believe JB - and he was JB's defence!

It seems to me this could be construed as another point where JB was "stitched up", but this time (if the figure at the window had any substance) by his own team!

[Nickos]

Errors made by Rivlin, does not prove there was no person at the bedroom window...

If Essex police released all the information about what Bews spoke about to the control room upon the jaunt into the grounds of whf with Myall and Jeremy, and every other communication which followed on from that up to and including the deployment of the firearms team, we would soon get to the bottom of this...

Then you'll agree that errors made by EP, Doctors, etc. etc. does not prove JB to be innocent?

- and so the wheel turns 

[mike tesko]

Then you'll agree that errors made by EP, Doctors, etc. etc. does not prove JB to be innocent?

- and so the wheel turns 

and likewise everything else they came up with doesn't prove he's guilty...

Seems like there are some prople who think its alright to tamper with exhibits, alter exhibit references, have thier witness statrments typed out and edited by the DPP,  and all manner of criminal activity - oh I forgot, when police and thier experts get up to such things, you describe it as an error, a mistake, or whatever other pathetic excuse or explanation you can come up with. Lets get the facts right, the new police investigation and the relatives stitched Jeremy Bamber up with murders he did not commit. There is no direct evidence which proves he shot and killed anyone, the evidence was purely circumstantial...

What if Sheila's blood was found inside either Anthony Pargeters Parker Hale Silencer, or an identical Parker Hale silencer belonging to Robert Woodwis Boutflour? Would that make one or other the killer? You see the police and Pargeter have never talked about where Pargeters Parker hale silencer wa the time of the shootings but it could only have been either at the scene, or in Pargeters possession? If Sheila's blood was actually found inside it, does this make it more likely that Anthony Pargeter was/is the killer?

Similarly, Robert Boutflours Parker hale silencer was never kept at the scene, and both Sheila and he had the same blood grouprs, but different DNA, whi h might account for why Sgeilas DNA was never found on any baffles where bloid had supposefly been found, whilst an unidentifued male DNA was detected that could have originated from Robert Boutflour...

Tests could still be carried out today to establish whether or not the mysterious unidentified male DNA found on baffle plates originated from and was exclusive to Robert Boutflour...

Imagine if the blood group activity found in the silencer, originated from Robert Boutflour, matched to his own DNA on the very same baffle plates the incriminating blood was found...

Now that would be very interesting, indeed...

[mike tesko]

Test the unidentified male DNA found on baffles of silencer to Robert Boutflour...

Game over, if a perfect match established...

[gringo]

Test the unidentified male DNA found on baffles of silencer to Robert Boutflour...

Game over, if a perfect match established...

Is the DNA still available Mike ?