Daniel and Nicholas Caffell: 22 June 1979-7 August 1985

[Roch]

Yep, I found this, quoting the door in your photo Master>Box Room

That bible lies on top of a very distinctive bloodstain.  BTW did you get my pm?

[Nigel]

That bible lies on top of a very distinctive bloodstain.  BTW did you get my pm?

yes and replied.
relevant image below

[Steve_uk]

yes and replied.
relevant image below

Couldn't this be the result of Jeremy leading Sheila by the hand to her death after his own gloved hand had become bloodied by the struggle with Nevill? What is it that the Defence is claiming by this photograph?

[lookout]

No Steve,those marks are pressure ones caused by an alien object of which Sheila hadn't been used to using for any length of time,apart from the night of the murders. An example being that if using scissors for cutting heavy material,the scissors eventually cause pressure marks on the thumb joint and forefinger.

[Roch]

Couldn't this be the result of Jeremy leading Sheila by the hand to her death after his own gloved hand had become bloodied by the struggle with Nevill?

Steve, with respect - you sometimes sound like RWB's protege!

What is it that the Defence is claiming by this photograph?

Publically I don't think they have claimed anything.  I imagine they will take instruction from a pathologist.  However, I think there may be procedural precedence in this case for photographic evidence to be dismissed out of hand.  No pun intended.

That being said, future public opinion is another matter altogether - and is unlikely to be appreciative of such legal technicalities.

[Caroline]

Steve, with respect - you sometimes sound like RWB's protege!

Publically I don't think they have claimed anything.  I imagine they will take instruction from a pathologist.  However, I think there may be procedural precedence in this case for photographic evidence to be dismissed out of hand.  No pun intended.

That being said, future public opinion is another matter altogether - and is unlikely to be appreciative of such legal technicalities.

And a photographic expert.

[Roch]

And a photographic expert.

Re negatives? Or for lab blow-ups?

[Caroline]

Re negatives? Or for lab blow-ups?

A pathologist isn't going to be much help looking at a photograph and you can bet  your boots, he/she won't contradict someone like Vannezis.

[Roch]

A pathologist isn't going to be much help looking at a photograph and you can bet  your boots, he/she won't contradict someone like Vannezis.

When did Vanezis attain this god-like status?  If a corpse has been destroyed, I imagine photographs retain some significance as a record of events. 

[Caroline]

When did Vanezis attain this god-like status?  If a corpse has been destroyed, I imagine photographs retain some significance as a record of events.

His report (as he actually viewed the body) would have more bearing and he is still alive and not god like, just very well respected.

[Steve_uk]

Steve, with respect - you sometimes sound like RWB's protege!

Publically I don't think they have claimed anything.  I imagine they will take instruction from a pathologist.  However, I think there may be procedural precedence in this case for photographic evidence to be dismissed out of hand.  No pun intended.

That being said, future public opinion is another matter altogether - and is unlikely to be appreciative of such legal technicalities.

Had the adults been fighting for their lives, as they surely were, there would have been far more of an attempt to inflict injuries on their daughter than what looks like no more than a smear of blood. This suggests to me that the perpetrator inflicted the damage within a very short space of time, more indicative of someone familiar with guns, the person who had indulged in target practice with Anthony Pargeter not two weeks before the murders, not someone in the grip of psychosis and ignorant of the workings of guns.

[lookout]

Did anyone read/see the article about " Coercive Control ?" A very interesting subject.

A husband controlled his wife to such a degree that she suffered severe mental illness and bludgeoned him to death with a hammer. The wife's jail sentence was one for " murder " initially and through research of the background of the situation and assistance of their son,the sentence had been reduced to a manslaughter charge.

To my mind in JB's case,little information was ever produced into why Sheila ended up as she had done.

[Jane]

Did anyone read/see the article about " Coercive Control ?" A very interesting subject.

A husband controlled his wife to such a degree that she suffered severe mental illness and bludgeoned him to death with a hammer. The wife's jail sentence was one for " murder " initially and through research of the background of the situation and assistance of their son,the sentence had been reduced to a manslaughter charge.

To my mind in JB's case,little information was ever produced into why Sheila ended up as she had done.

Do you mean mentally ill or dead? The wide reasons for the former are diverse. For the latter, the immediate reason was that she was shot.

[lookout]

Do you mean mentally ill or dead? The wide reasons for the former are diverse. For the latter, the immediate reason was that she was shot.

Different reactions to different mental illnesses.

The woman in the news was driven to kill.
Sheila had been driven to kill.

Both womens mental issues had been brought on by a controlling person. Both with no previous history of mental illness.
 Women being the most vulnerable in these situations as opposed to men,even though men also have controlling wives/partners but are more likely to commit suicide to get out of the situation than cause injury or death.

[Roch]

Had the adults been fighting for their lives, as they surely were, there would have been far more of an attempt to inflict injuries on their daughter than what looks like no more than a smear of blood.

What you're looking at is only her right hand - not the rest of her body.  It doesn't look like a smear of blood.  People are attempting to label it a smear of blood purely because it wasn't referred to as a wound.  What Vanezis actually said when testifying (regarding the mark on the forefinger) was laughable (given that he had full access to the physical body - and it that was the body of a person in the frame for murdering four people with a rifle).