Photographic still image taken from crime scene video - The shocking truth...

[ngb1066]

I have seen it though, so it must have been on Youtube at some point - or what?

I think you should search under Crimes That Shook Britain.

[mike tesko]

Anyone who claims that photographic image (a) is not new material because its been shown before, or seen before, should explain to me  why no-one has brought up the issue of there  being  two female bodies in the image, not just one? Why would someone go to the trouble of fakung a photograph with two female bodies inIit close to each other, when the official police case is that Sheila and Junes bodies were found on a bedroom floor either side of a double bed - Sheila laid out flat on the floor alongside the  edge of the bed, whilst June was slumped against the bedroom door on the other side of the bed...

I do not believe that the two females shown in photographic image (a) are actresses. I think the persons in the image were June and Sheila
..

[Jane]

Anyone who claims that photographic image (a) is not new material because its been shown before, or seen before, should explain to me  why no-one has brought up the issue of there  being  two female bodies in the image, not just one? Why would someone go to the trouble of fakung a photograph with two female bodies inIit close to each other, when the official police case is that Sheila and Junes bodies were found on a bedroom floor either side of a double bed - Sheila laid out flat on the floor alongside the  edge of the bed, whilst June was slumped against the bedroom door on the other side of the bed...

OK. It's a poor representation of the original crime scene, real ONLY on the night it was aired and having only little to do with what happened in 1985. Presenting a "June" and a "Sheila" as laying closer together than the REAL June and REAL Sheila ACTUALLY were, doesn't change how they were originally FOUND.

[Alias]

Anyone who claims that photographic image (a) is not new material because its been shown before, or seen before, should explain to me  why no-one has brought up the issue of there  being  two female bodies in the image, not just one? Why would someone go to the trouble of fakung a photograph with two female bodies inIit close to each other, when the official police case is that Sheila and Junes bodies were found on a bedroom floor either side of a double bed - Sheila laid out flat on the floor alongside the  edge of the bed, whilst June was slumped against the bedroom door on the other side of the bed...

Because everyone can tell that it is an inaccurate reenactment of the crime scene! Actresses posing as Sheila and June.
I can´t believe this!

[mike tesko]

OK. It's a poor representation of the original crime scene, real ONLY on the night it was aired and having only little to do with what happened in 1985. Presenting a "June" and a "Sheila" as laying closer together than the REAL June and REAL Sheila ACTUALLY were, doesn't change how they were originally FOUND.

You miss the purpose for me posting photographic still (a) which shows what are believed to be two female bodies, one in the foreground showing no signs of (1) having been shot twice in the neck, with accompanying blood around mouth and upon neck, or of having been shot between the eyes...

What this means, is one of two things. Firstly, if these were actresses reci what had really taken place then the reconstruction took place so as to include no evidenceo of a second shot beneath the chin, or (2) a bullet between the eyes. Opening it up gor the possibility that Sheila or June could have been the dead female downstairs, earlier. ..

[Jane]

You miss the purpose for me posting photographic still (a) which shows what are believed to be two female bodies, one in the foreground showing no signs of (1) having been shot twice in the neck, with accompanying blood around mouth and upon neck, or of having been shot between the eyes...

What this means, is one of two things. Firstly, if these were actresses recinstu ting what had really taken plave then the reconstruction took place so as to include no evidenceo of a second shot beneath the chin, or a bullet between the eyes. Opening it up gor the possibility that Sheila or June could have been the dead female downstairs, earlier. ..

It's a representation, Mike. Just like the Impressionist Movement, it neither needs nor pretends to be an accurate portrayal. We can put our own spin on  these paintings, just as you can put your chosen spin on the documentary. IMO, there was nothing covert and there were NO underlying suggestions.

[petey]

You miss the purpose for me posting photographic still (a) which shows what are believed to be two gale bodies, one in the foreground showing no signs of (1) having been shot twice in the neck, with accompanying blood around mouth and upon neck, or of having been shot between the eyes...

What this means, is one of two things. Firstly, if these were actresses recinstu ting what had really taken plave then the reconstruction took place so as to include no evidenceo of a second shot beneath the chin, or a bullet between the eyes. Opening it up gor the possibility that Sheila or June could have been the dead female downstairs, earlier. ..

So getting back to reality now.

A few days ago you claimed to have ground-breaking new photographic evidence of Sheila and June laying on the floor together. You delayed producing this on the back of some mysterious phone call from some unknown source advising you against publication for some unknown reason.

What it all boils down to now, is the people in the photo you posted are not Sheila and June, but rather 2 actresses playing their parts.

Now, rather than accepting that the photo you posted is in fact a picture of actresses and therefore of no relevance at all to tangible, credible evidence you first claimed it to be, you now attempt a different slant.

If I read you correctly you are now claiming that because a TV documentary didn't accurately portray the crime scene as it was, this is evidence that points towards jb being innocent.

I don't think the phrase clutching at straws even does this latest claim justice.

[mike tesko]

I maintain that the two female bodies in the photographic still (a) are Sheila and June. It is open to everyone to believe what they want to. When I mentioned the possibility that if the two females were actresses, and that one of the females in the foreground of (a) did not have a shot under her chin, or a bullet wound between her eyes, that in the remote chance that this female was an actress, not either Sheila, or June,  then any reconstruction reproduced the known facts and circumstances in such a way, as to produce a PARADOXICAL clue, to the meaning of the message logs making mention of two bodies having been found downstairs, the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female. However, the photographic still (a) is a true representation of Sheila and June together on the floor without a key bullet injury visible, making it possible for Sheila or June to be the female mentioned downstairs. Possible, because in image (a) the female in the foreground has neither a shot under the  chin, or a bullet between the eyes...

[Jane]

I maintain that the two female bodies un the photographic still (a) are Sheila and June. It is open to everyone to believe what they want to. When I mentioned the possibility that if the two females were actresses, and that one of the females in the foreground of (a) did not have a shot under her chin, or a bullet wound between her eyes, that in the remote chance that this female was an actress, not either Sheila, or June,  then any reconstruction reproduced the known facts and circumstances in such a way, as to produce a PARADOXICAL clue, to the meaning of the message logs making mention of two bodies having been found downstairs, the body of one dead male, and the body of one dead female. However, the pbotographic still (a) is a true representation of Sheila and June together on the floor without a key bullet injury visible, making it possible for Sheila or June to be the female mentioned downstairs. Possible, because in image (a) the female in the foreground has neither a shot under the  hin, or a bullet between the eyes...

Mike, as an actress on is SUPPOSED to suffer for ones art. It does NOT however, include allowing oneself to be shot between the eyes for a job paying only a few hundred pounds.

[mike tesko]

Mike, as an actress on is SUPPOSED to suffer for ones art. It does NOT however, include allowing oneself to be shot between the eyes for a job paying only a few hundred pounds.

I am assured that the female in the foreground is Sheila...

[Jane]

I am assured that the female in the foreground is Sheila...

And I have provided you with many reasons why the female without the bloodied face, IMO, can NOT be Sheila............OR June. I have no agenda and no axe to grind, but naturally you are free to believe what you want, as are we all.

[Caroline]

And I have provided you with many reasons why the female without the bloodied face, IMO, can NOT be Sheila............OR June. I have no agenda and no axe to grind, but naturally you are free to believe what you want, as are we all.

I think the majority know the truth.

[petey]

I think the majority everybody but Mike knows the truth.

[Jane]

There appears to be very little support for Mike's theory, Petey. Good luck with the Phd, by the way.

[mike tesko]

The female in the formatted photographic still that was taken from the crime scene video is Sheila, and as everyone can see, there is no blood pouring from her mouth, or across her neck...

The grainy quality of the image sets it apart from other imagery broadcast in the same documentary.  The way the producer has fizzed real time footage into reenacted parts was very clever, but not clever enough to fool me. Key to establishing fact from fiction rests with the format and quality of the recording video tape, type of device used and  process adopted when converting the real time footage into single photographic still images...