A stop needs to be made to other people changing the meaning of what I have been saying or posting, since the way these people are reporting these things they are trying to change the meaning and purpose of what I report. Sometimes, I am reporting what is posted elsewhere on other web sites, sometimes I am reporting what has been posted on our forum, or in newspaper reports or TV bulletins, or be reference to some evidential fact contained in the case files, yet there are some who are repeatedly altering these references as though I have said this, or I have said that...
None of which is reliable at all and have already been debunked as lies, fantasy and pure nonsense.
A typical example, is where these other people have been saying that Sheila was shot on the second occasion two hours or more after the first shot across the neck was inflicted, which is not something I have been saying at all. Although there is evidence available to confirm that there was ample delay between the firing of the two shots, where blood that ran from the original bullet wound on Sheila's neck, and the rear of her nightdress, which had clearly already dried before the second shot was discharged in her neck under the chin, a feature everyone can see in the photograph posted previously.
You did indeed suggest that the second shot was delivered hours later. Moreover, there is no evidence at all that blood dried from the first wound before the second wound was delivered. Your claim the photo demonstrates such is false. The second shot was delivered within seconds of the first of there would have been far more blood that ran down her shoulder. That is the medical opinio of the coroner and niether you nor anyone else has provided any medical expert who can dispute this.
You have no evidentiary basis at all to question the coroner's findings. Your claims are all unsupported and fail to dent the claim of the coroner.
What I would like to do, is ask everyone how long do you think the blood trail from the lower non fatal wound on her neck was inflicted, as compared to the fresh looking blood that was photographed running, pouring and leaking from the upper fatal bullet wound?
The wound you claim is fresh looking is extremely dark. It obviously is not sending any blood out. It looks dry. Your claim it is wet blood is not supportable at all. indeed the blood trailing from both wounds down the side of her neck looks identical.
There is clearly a significant delay, between the firing of both shots, not only in the angle of the rifle at the time each shot was discharged, but chiefly because the first shot was non fatal, and the second shot was fatal. The delay between both shots (bullet PV/20 and PV/19) can be seen in the photographs taken at around 10 O'clock by PC Bird (SOC), where the vertical blood trail is dried, whilst the horizontal blood trails are wet and fresh looking...
The first shot would have been fatal had the second shot not been delivered. The second shot killed Sheila before the 1st shot could result in her bleeding out. She would have bled far more down her shoulder and arm if the second shot had been delivered more than mere seconds later. You lack the medical training necessary to say otherwise you need to find an expert to challenge the coroner but the defense hasn't found one who can challenge the coroner so you have none to rely on.
All the picture in question shows is that when she was seated gravity removed most blood from her neck and the blood went down her shoulder. The fact a trail didn't stay there to dry means she was shot again very soon after the first shot and moved flat not too long after that.
Your claims are not suppoerted by science or competent evidence. You claims are unsupported and clearly wrong and not credible. No matter how many times you claim the blood is wet that doesn't prove it is wet. The doctor who saw her said the blood was dry and it certianly looks dry to me and others who have actually seen wet blood in photos. The wounds are very dark which is indicative of the wounds being dry. The blood is also flat. Wet blood will have blobs that stand out and it will be very shiny with reflections. A bleeding wound has blood around the opening not dark scabs. Your claims are completely baseless from top to bottom.
Linked to these discrepancies, is the presence of the heavy bloodstain present upon the rear of Sheila's nightdress which had clearly dried prior to her body being laid out on the bedroom floor adjacent to the parents bed. None of the blood on the rear of the nightdress was transferred onto the rug / carpet beneath Sheila's body where it was photographed from around 10 O'clock onwards, so it is safe to assume, safe to conclude, that the lower bullet wound on Sheila's neck, with its corresponding vertical dried blood stain running down her neck, is linked and associated to the dried bloodstain on the reverse of her nightdress, and that in fact Sheila must have been laid somewhere else at the scene beforehand, somewhere where the blood on the reverse of her nightdress was replicated or transferred onto the bed in the main bedroom, or the floor in the kitchen...
Your reasoning is badly flawed, totally unsupported and at the end of the day wholely baseless and lacking in any evidentiary support whatsoever and not credible in light of the things I mentioned.
