Author Topic: What exhibits were destroyed in 1996?  (Read 44128 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: What exhibits were destroyed in 1996?
« Reply #60 on: September 12, 2014, 02:38:PM »



It shouldn't be,as under normal circumstances it takes 2/3 hours to reach the small intestine through the digestion process.
Okay,if she'd have eaten at midnight,and died at midnight,then obviously the food would remain where it was,undigested,but the girl would have been a darker colour,after the pallor of her complexion that we've all seen,and because LM had only started ( visible in her legs,underneath ) which comes on about half an hour after death and up to 2 or three hours for it to become visible.

So presumably the tragedy happened after midnight,so Sheila would have had to have been killed immediately after eating,whatever time that was. So count back 3 hours at the most for LM to be visible,from the time she was found.

The food in her stomach was 'partially digested' so she must have died 4 - 6 hours 'after' eating. So, in order to know when she died, we have to know the time that she ate. Jeremy stated that they ate between 8-9pm which would put her time of death between midnight and 2pm or at a push - 3pm. That's well 'before' the time Jeremy claims his father called. And that's using the outside time!!
« Last Edit: September 12, 2014, 02:39:PM by Caroline »
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: What exhibits were destroyed in 1996?
« Reply #61 on: September 12, 2014, 02:40:PM »
It was undigested food,so it hadn't even begun the digestion process.

The autopsy states that it was 'partially digested'
Few people have the imagination for reality

No-Bits

  • Guest
Re: What exhibits were destroyed in 1996?
« Reply #62 on: September 12, 2014, 02:54:PM »



That'll be what I've previously described as the dresser where the pool of blood was discovered. Unfortunately,because of the initial mix-up whether it was two people in the kitchen or one,and whatever went on to cause that confusion,because it was finally decided that it was Nevilles' body,the police would naturally have assumed that the pool of blood was that of Nevilles. Although it couldn't have been at all,and I don't believe that it was his.

What pool of blood? Or has it already been mopped up?

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: What exhibits were destroyed in 1996?
« Reply #63 on: September 12, 2014, 03:04:PM »
The autopsy states that it was 'partially digested'

Just to add some frame of reference there is undigested food- (which is rarely found in stomachs unless people are killed while eating a meal), semi-digested food (which means it is partly digested but they can still recognize what the food was by sight) and last partially digested which means it has been digested thoroughly enough that it physically no longer recognize what it was but it has not yet cleared the stomach.

So you are correct that it is the last stage of digestion which can take some time before clearing the stomach occurrs.

Tests of bodies reveal that complete and total clearance from the stomach takes on average a little over 6 hours.  Sheila was still in the kitchen when Pam called so could still have been eating at that time but even Jeremy places her there eating until 9 or later.  So it is indeed possible her last known meal is what they found in her stomach as you suggest.  There is no way to say whether she had a snack later a couple of hours before her death or not based on such.  Jeremy was not specific about what she had been eating so that doesn't allow us to try looking at the food itself to see if it would have taken longer to digest or not.  Also Sheila's medication could potentially slow down digestion.

 

   
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: What exhibits were destroyed in 1996?
« Reply #64 on: September 12, 2014, 03:06:PM »
What pool of blood? Or has it already been mopped up?

An author refenced a pool of blood yet offered no evidentiary basis for the claim.  Lookout doesn't care that no evidentiary basis was provided and chooses to run with any claims by authors that support her claims that evidence was tampered with by police regardless of whether they are unsupported allegations.   
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

No-Bits

  • Guest
Re: What exhibits were destroyed in 1996?
« Reply #65 on: September 12, 2014, 03:09:PM »
An author refenced a pool of blood yet offered no evidentiary basis for the claim.  Lookout doesn't care that no evidentiary basis was provided and chooses to run with any claims by authors that support her claims that evidence was tampered with by police regardless of whether they are unsupported allegations.

Well it's clearly not present in the photograph. Surely that is evidence enough that there was no such pool of blood?

Or am I mistaken?  ???

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: What exhibits were destroyed in 1996?
« Reply #66 on: September 12, 2014, 03:29:PM »
The autopsy states that it was 'partially digested'




Right,so if partially digested,halve the time it would take to have been fully digested. ;D ;D

It is really impossible to judge when a person died as to the stomach contents,as it varies a lot to what's been eaten,warm or cold atmosphere and other things which a pathologist can detect. A pathologist can hazard a guess in some cases,but Sheila obviously hadn't been dead long enough for him to say in the terms that they use and I certainly won't go into it.

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: What exhibits were destroyed in 1996?
« Reply #67 on: September 12, 2014, 03:30:PM »
Lots of innocent supporters have argued that a struggle didn't take place - (I even suggested it myself), however, while some of the damage may have been caused by the raid team, some of it looks staged! The plates on the floor near the phone for instance; it looks as though they are there to bolster the notion that Neville was attacked while trying to use the phone. There are no pictures of the light fitting (as far as I can see) but maybe Harters knows where it was/is situated?

1) There is no way that the beating Nevill suffered from was staged.  He was shot while passed out on the chair.  If he had been bashed in while passed out on the chair then his body would have fell over. 

2) Beating his lifeless body to stage a struggle makes no sense.  Sheila should have been injured in a truly strong struggle (he had no way to know Nevill's arm was broken) and a struggle would only happen if the gun were empty.

3) If you are suggesting the struggle was limited in scope but then he tried staging it to make it look more severel that is possible but if so was stupid on his part given the clean state of her body and clothing.  He should have tried concealing the struggle took place not making it look worse and more wild.  Clearly his arm was wounded when he tried blocking blows from the rifle stock and the rifle stock bashed his head in.  How the overtunred chairs etc fit in to that we cna't knwo and perhaps some staging was done later to ake it look more wild.

4) The ceiling light was not only high but over the table.  It was not broken by someone being directly unde rit.  It was broken by the rifle being held diagonally while standing near the table and smashing it.  That action is what suggests the moderator needed to be attached because the rifle was otherwise not long enough.  So we have evidence of them arguing over the rifle with the rifle essentially shoulder high and then evidence of the front of the gun (moderator) being waist level or lower as they argued based on the scratches to the mantle. Is it possible to knock chairs entirely over as you bump into them?  Yes but it depends on the chair because all chairs take different effort. 

The bottom line is there definitely was a vicious beating.  We can't be sure if Jeremy added anything to the scnee ot make it look more severe than it was. The only reaosn I can think of Jeremy to do that would be because he wanted it to seem it took longer and was harder for her to defeat Nevill than it was for him since she was smaller so it would be expected to be a more difficult task for her.  But that just makes it more likely she would would have been injured and covered in Nevill's blood so would create more problems not less.

Since there is evidence Nevill tried to tekae the gun away not just to raise his arm to defend himself from blows I am not prepared to say there was definite staging done to make it look more severe.  They could have bumped into things and a long rifle can knock things over quite easily during a struggle.

It does indeed look like someone was thinking about what to do in the kitchen so far as staging and with Sheila's body as well so it is certainly possible some of the finer details were staged. If it could be proved there was staging that would be another nice strike against Jeremy but I don't see that as possible since there was clearly a struggle of some magnitude.

     
     
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: What exhibits were destroyed in 1996?
« Reply #68 on: September 12, 2014, 03:32:PM »
What pool of blood? Or has it already been mopped up?





The pool of blood which had been pointed out to Jeremy by a member of EP. In fact--------a large pool,it was said. I really wouldn't know what happened to it,but yes,I'd imagine it was cleaned up.

Offline JackiePreece

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4743
Re: What exhibits were destroyed in 1996?
« Reply #69 on: September 12, 2014, 03:35:PM »
To Caroline and Hartley you are now stating that the "fight" in the kitchen was "staged".
(1) To say that the kitchen scene was staged must remain only an assumption by you and Hartley. There is nothing at the scene to suggest any such thing. This must be emphasised every time that this "staging" is mentioned.
             (2) The police have already admitted that the breaking of crockery etc happened when the raid team broke in. Even if one officer admitted it and the rest remained silent, nevertheless that one officer's admission must surely through suspicion upon the statements of the other officers as he has no reason to lie. Because of this all the raid team statements must of necessity be treated with caution.
             (3) I the light of this one officer's admission that the damage was caused through the actions of the raid team and the fact that they admitted to have moved the body of Sheila even so ever slightly we are justified in assuming that if the scene was staged then it must have been staged by the police themselves.
 
To suggest that the kitchen scene was "staged" must remain only speculation, as there is absolute no evidence for this except within your own minds and prejudice.
 
"No hour of life is wasted that is spent in the saddle" Winston Churchill

Offline lookout

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 48670
Re: What exhibits were destroyed in 1996?
« Reply #70 on: September 12, 2014, 03:35:PM »
An author refenced a pool of blood yet offered no evidentiary basis for the claim.  Lookout doesn't care that no evidentiary basis was provided and chooses to run with any claims by authors that support her claims that evidence was tampered with by police regardless of whether they are unsupported allegations.




Let me tell you that the author in question sees Jeremy as guilty,so leave me out of it----------knowall !!

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: What exhibits were destroyed in 1996?
« Reply #71 on: September 12, 2014, 03:36:PM »
Right,so if partially digested,halve the time it would take to have been fully digested. ;D ;D

It is really impossible to judge when a person died as to the stomach contents,as it varies a lot to what's been eaten,warm or cold atmosphere and other things which a pathologist can detect. A pathologist can hazard a guess in some cases,but Sheila obviously hadn't been dead long enough for him to say in the terms that they use and I certainly won't go into it.

Partially digested mean food is broken down enough to no longer be physically recognizable as to what it was.  Someone could be killed 3 minutes before such food would have cleared the stomach or several hours before it would have cleared the stomach.  It is a wide range hence why of limited utility in most cases. 
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

Offline scipio_usmc

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9502
Re: What exhibits were destroyed in 1996?
« Reply #72 on: September 12, 2014, 03:39:PM »
To Caroline and Hartley you are now stating that the "fight" in the kitchen was "staged".
(1) To say that the kitchen scene was staged must remain only an assumption by you and Hartley. There is nothing at the scene to suggest any such thing. This must be emphasised every time that this "staging" is mentioned.
             (2) The police have already admitted that the breaking of crockery etc happened when the raid team broke in. Even if one officer admitted it and the rest remained silent, nevertheless that one officer's admission must surely through suspicion upon the statements of the other officers as he has no reason to lie. Because of this all the raid team statements must of necessity be treated with caution.
             (3) I the light of this one officer's admission that the damage was caused through the actions of the raid team and the fact that they admitted to have moved the body of Sheila even so ever slightly we are justified in assuming that if the scene was staged then it must have been staged by the police themselves.
 
To suggest that the kitchen scene was "staged" must remain only speculation, as there is absolute no evidence for this except within your own minds and prejudice.

They are suggesting there was staging they didn't say there was no fight at all and a dead body beaten (which is what Holly AKA naughtynun has suggested).  It is possible they are suggesting that the fight caused less damage to the kitchen and that Jeremy staged some of the damage.  So don't go off halfcocked till they explain in full.
Politeness is organized indifference- Paul Valéry

guest154

  • Guest
Re: What exhibits were destroyed in 1996?
« Reply #73 on: September 12, 2014, 03:40:PM »



Let me tell you that the author in question sees Jeremy as guilty,so leave me out of it----------knowall !!

Doesn't matter if they believe him guilty or innocent. If there was no puddle there was no puddle.

No-Bits

  • Guest
Re: What exhibits were destroyed in 1996?
« Reply #74 on: September 12, 2014, 03:43:PM »




The pool of blood which had been pointed out to Jeremy by a member of EP. In fact--------a large pool,it was said. I really wouldn't know what happened to it,but yes,I'd imagine it was cleaned up.

But the photograph is right in front of you and shows you that there isn't a pool of blood.

Are you not a little bit irritated that you have been lied to and misled?  ???

« Last Edit: September 12, 2014, 03:44:PM by Harters »