Author Topic: Who Bled here?  (Read 6096 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Who Bled here?
« on: February 20, 2013, 07:56:PM »
Who Bled Here:-
« Last Edit: February 20, 2013, 07:59:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Who Bled here?
« Reply #1 on: February 20, 2013, 08:08:PM »
 Mike,,it looks as though Sheila had spluttered,,given the random spots of blood. It's been sprayed rather than a venous collection that would have pooled.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21102
Re: Who Bled here?
« Reply #2 on: February 20, 2013, 08:18:PM »
Jeremy caught Sheila unawares upon entry to the master bedroom and shot her under the chin,which only stunned her much to his chagrin. It was then easy to push her down quickly to take a second shot,then scatter the bible and no doubt some of Sheila's own notes written whilst still under the influence of religion which in her case had been used for many years to make her feel guilty about sex and as a corollary an unworthy person.

Dr Peter Vanezis testified on oath that Sheila could not have moved up and downstairs between the first and second shots,and we have seen the actions of many people in psychosis since Sheila's death who have no understanding of what they are doing,do not scheme during this time and do not hide from law enforcement should they arrive on the scene. Sheila's own medication was still in her system(it was described as a therapeutic dose by Senior Scientific Officer Alexander Richard Allan)and therefore making her drowsy,to which her hectic schedule from Saturday 3rd August was testament and would have exacerbated.

Jeremy had told Julie on several occasions that he wanted to commit the perfect crime and this necessarily involved blaming Sheila. However it was difficult to get all family members under the same roof,where they would be sitting ducks for Jeremy the practical joker with malice aforethought and therefore difficult to read by a Julie who like most normal people would have abhorred such a scheme and would have not have wished it mentioned again in our presence.

Jeremy had the motive,he had the opportunity,he had no alibi. He had been in and out of a farmhouse window by slipping the catch and banging on the window on exit,a means he did after the murders on September 17 in an effort to contaminate even more forensic evidence which he had cleverly asked DCI Taff Jones to destroy only days after the murders.

Any cursory examination of the crime scene suggests that Sheila could not have created such havoc without leaving some forensic traces behind,yet there were none. The purported telephone call from Nevill is uncorroborated and there is Julie's statement which remains intact to this day.

It's time to put pressure on Jeremy to confess and to apologize to those people whose life he has affected in a detrimental way,not to afford this man celebrity status through new mass media unthought of at the time of his incarceration,and which sustain and buttress this evil man daily,whereas in reality he should be paying recompense to his victims,particularly Colin in whatever small way he is able,instead of fostering uncertainty in everyone's mind which is an extension of the psychological mind games he played with Julie and others for the past twenty seven years with(by his warped standards) some degree of success.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2013, 08:20:PM by Steve_uk »

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Who Bled here?
« Reply #3 on: February 20, 2013, 08:21:PM »
 Steve,,,there's every chance that when Jeremy was telling JM all his plans,,,that somebody overheard.?

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21102
Re: Who Bled here?
« Reply #4 on: February 20, 2013, 08:30:PM »
Steve,,,there's every chance that when Jeremy was telling JM all his plans,,,that somebody overheard.?
I think it was on a small number of occasions during the many months they were together and it seems worse when they're all put together. Of course Julie was at fault and I bet there's not a day goes by without her bitterly regretting her actions or lack of them during that period of her life as a 20 year old,when it's very easy to be led astray,particulary someone with Julie's history.

Jeremy thought he could control Julie:he controlled her bodily already so why not her mind? But Julie was in a different category to his other conquests and he was sorely mistaken.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33782
Re: Who Bled here?
« Reply #5 on: February 20, 2013, 08:38:PM »
I think it was on a small number of occasions during the many months they were together and it seems worse when they're all put together. Of course Julie was at fault and I bet there's not a day goes by without her bitterly regretting her actions or lack of them during that period of her life as a 20 year old,when it's very easy to be led astray,particulary someone with Julie's history.

Jeremy thought he could control Julie:he controlled her bodily already so why not her mind? But Julie was in a different category to his other conquests and he was sorely mistaken.


You see Jeremy as the arch manipulator. Many of us believe that role to be Julie's. She certainly scores as many, if not more, points than Jeremy on the psychopathy scale, but Jeremy has been found not to be psychopathic.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Who Bled here?
« Reply #6 on: February 20, 2013, 08:39:PM »
I think it was on a small number of occasions during the many months they were together and it seems worse when they're all put together. Of course Julie was at fault and I bet there's not a day goes by without her bitterly regretting her actions or lack of them during that period of her life as a 20 year old,when it's very easy to be led astray,particulary someone with Julie's history.

Jeremy thought he could control Julie:he controlled her bodily already so why not her mind? But Julie was in a different category to his other conquests and he was sorely mistaken.


A " somebody " could literally have got away with murder by pinning it on Jeremy. There's no honour among thieves and Jeremy was pretty naive. You've heard of the saying " walls have ears ". How very true. Our Jeremy wasn't exactly trench material,,he had a lot to learn.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Who Bled here?
« Reply #7 on: February 20, 2013, 08:47:PM »
Another expert, Professor Knight, testifed during the trial that sheila could have moved around for a considerable amount of time after the first shot - which contradicts what others are saying the pathologist Peter Venezis has said. Well, whilst on the subject of Peter Venezis and the integrity of his testimony and evidence in general - he states that the original PV/20 bullet was badly fragmented as of 7th August 1985, whewn he removed it from Sheila's neck. Yet about six weeks later, it had become transformed into a whole bullet to allow the ballistic expert to link it to the anshulz rifle. So, why hasn't Peter Venezis spoken out about the state of the original bullet (PV/20), and its miraculous transformation from badly fragmented ,to a whole one in about six weeks?
« Last Edit: February 20, 2013, 08:47:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline packagebuilder

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 659
  • Very delusional
Re: Who Bled here?
« Reply #8 on: February 20, 2013, 09:01:PM »
Another expert, Professor Knight, testifed during the trial that sheila could have moved around for a considerable amount of time after the first shot - which contradicts what others are saying the pathologist Peter Venezis has said. Well, whilst on the subject of Peter Venezis and the integrity of his testimony and evidence in general - he states that the original PV/20 bullet was badly fragmented as of 7th August 1985, whewn he removed it from Sheila's neck. Yet about six weeks later, it had become transformed into a whole bullet to allow the ballistic expert to link it to the anshulz rifle. So, why hasn't Peter Venezis spoken out about the state of the original bullet (PV/20), and its miraculous transformation from badly fragmented ,to a whole one in about six weeks?

How does a bullet been fragmented convert back into a whole bullet again?? its like saying a  total smashed up car was recovered by police, then week later in courts its a brand new car recovered!!
500ml of Chloroform is next :P
:)                  
())
(**) =~~
(")(")

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Who Bled here?
« Reply #9 on: February 20, 2013, 09:06:PM »
How does a bullet been fragmented convert back into a whole bullet again?? its like saying a  total smashed up car was recovered by police, then week later in courts its a brand new car recovered!!


Yes,,all lies,PB.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 21102
Re: Who Bled here?
« Reply #10 on: February 20, 2013, 09:08:PM »

You see Jeremy as the arch manipulator. Many of us believe that role to be Julie's. She certainly scores as many, if not more, points than Jeremy on the psychopathy scale, but Jeremy has been found not to be psychopathic.
I've heard this so many times before it's maybe your turn to change the record. Julie was offered a flat by June,I'm sure she could have arranged to get pregnant by affluent-to-be Jeremy yet she declined in both instances. The continual accusation that Julie is a psychopath is really unworthy of anyone let alone a Moderator,and how her two sons would feel about reading it I'm pretty sure they would be upset by the comments.

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48676
Re: Who Bled here?
« Reply #11 on: February 20, 2013, 09:15:PM »
Mike,,it looks as though Sheila had spluttered,,given the random spots of blood. It's been sprayed rather than a venous collection that would have pooled.


Or--------------something could have been shaken,causing the droplets of blood on the rug. It should have been examined,not burned.

Offline Jane

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 33782
Re: Who Bled here?
« Reply #12 on: February 20, 2013, 09:40:PM »
I've heard this so many times before it's maybe your turn to change the record. Julie was offered a flat by June,I'm sure she could have arranged to get pregnant by affluent-to-be Jeremy yet she declined in both instances. The continual accusation that Julie is a psychopath is really unworthy of anyone let alone a Moderator,and how her two sons would feel about reading it I'm pretty sure they would be upset by the comments.


Steve, I think I have many miles to go before I can even MATCH you for repetition.

 I can offer you several reasons why Julie declined June's offer, one of which is that she may have been aiming for bigger things. Another is that it may have amused her to know that her presence discomforted June. I can offer little reason for absence of pregnancy (other than good contraception) I can only think that babies didn't fit her plans AND they were both very young.

As to my comments about her scoring points on the psychopathy chart, I hasten to assure you that I didn't write the chart so I can take no responsibility for those who score points on it. In fact many of us were admitting that we scored several. I also recall saying that although it was said that Jeremy, too, scored points, he was deemed NOT to be a psychopath. My views are not uncommon with other members so I feel sorry that you are suggesting that, as a Moderator, I don't have the same right as other members to voice my opinion.

I rather feel an attempt is being made to tug at my heartstrings regarding the remote possibilty of Julie's children reading what is said of her. Certainly, one day they may, but I very much doubt that Julie will speak to them about what happened, her own part in what happened not exactly being squeaky clean, but if/when they do get to know about it, I think by that time they will know who/what their mother is/was more intimately than you or I...............Good Night, Steve. Sweet dreams

Offline Alias

  • Editor
  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9435
  • What is in those 200 boxes?
Re: Who Bled here?
« Reply #13 on: February 20, 2013, 09:42:PM »
I don´t think the drops of blood are Sheila´s. If they had been hurled there by caughing or spatting from fast motion, they would have a "tail", the ones on the pictures are round, which means they are from a person NOT IN MOTION OR VERY (very) SLOW MOTION. That said, Sheila might have shot herself/been shot standing, then, when the first shot did not kill her, she might have just stood there for a while bleeding; because those drops are from a person standing, sitting or walking EXTREMELY slowly, as I said. They could be from June - Neville - Sheila.... we´ll never know - they made a bonfire of the evidence....
Mike, have these photos been looked at by a blood-spatter analyst? I think an expert would be able to interpret a lot from them.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2013, 09:44:PM by Alias »

Offline Bridget

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5065
Re: Who Bled here?
« Reply #14 on: February 21, 2013, 12:27:AM »
Another expert, Professor Knight, testifed during the trial that sheila could have moved around for a considerable amount of time after the first shot - which contradicts what others are saying the pathologist Peter Venezis has said. Well, whilst on the subject of Peter Venezis and the integrity of his testimony and evidence in general - he states that the original PV/20 bullet was badly fragmented as of 7th August 1985, whewn he removed it from Sheila's neck. Yet about six weeks later, it had become transformed into a whole bullet to allow the ballistic expert to link it to the anshulz rifle. So, why hasn't Peter Venezis spoken out about the state of the original bullet (PV/20), and its miraculous transformation from badly fragmented ,to a whole one in about six weeks?

Can you post professor knight's evidence please? I've been asking for months now. The only reference to him I can find is in the appeal decision which says:

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".
....just cos I eat worms...