latest still image shows two bodies, in same room Conundrun

[Caroline]

Hi Mike,

No one can answer your question because the thread is locked. I have started this thread in order to respond. The still shows two females BUT the still is from Crimes That Shook Britain and neither female are June or Sheila - they are actresses. The still is nothing to do with the crime scene, it is not a police video, simply a 'bad' reconstruction of events.

[Alias]

Hi Mike,

No one can answer your question because the thread is locked. I have started this thread in order to respond. The still shows two females BUT the still is from Crimes That Shook Britain and neither female are June or Sheila - they are actresses. The still is nothing to do with the crime scene, it is not a police video, simply a 'bad' reconstruction of events.

Exactly what I have just said in another thread, so I agree a 100%. Everyone can see that it is a reenactment in a documentary!

I think it is very damaging for the credibility of Mike and for all member of this forum, to put this absurd claim up as some sort of "official" stance of the forum. That is what it will look like for people who see this from the outside. Mike makes his claim in a locked thread, so it cannot be contradicted.

[lookout]

To be perfectly honest,I can't see anyone using the people themselves in a very " public " enactment.

[lookout]

Surely to goodness you'd have to have the permission from the relatives first ? It's intrusive.

[Jane]

To be perfectly honest,I can't see anyone using the people themselves in a very " public " enactment.

Lookout!!! That's an EXCELLENT point. Mike speaks as if he was expecting the film makers to show the REAL Sheila and June. I have yet to see ANY reconstruction which uses the original crime scene when it contains things which would be distressing to relatives and general public and beyond the bounds of respect and decency.

[mike tesko]

The footage (a) is genuine, format and quality are consistant with the era when the tragedy occurred (7th August 1985).  There is nothing distressing about showing a very brief image of someone still alive. I can now see why the proxuver may not have shown a clear view of the second female body in the background of the same image - reason being that the other female was already dead,  and fits the dignity and respect having been spoken about by some...

[Jane]

The footage (a) is genuine, format and quality are cinsistant with the era when the tragedy occurred (7th August 1985).  There is nothing distressing about showing a very brief image of someone still alive. I can now see why the proxuver may not have shown a clear view of the second female body in the background of the same image - reason being thst the other female was already dead,  and fits the dignigy and respect anhle having been spoken  about by some...

No, there WAS nothing distressing about seeing an actress who was very much alive and made up to look dead.

[Alias]

The footage (a) is genuine, format and quality are consistant with the era when the tragedy occurred (7th August 1985).  There is nothing distressing about showing a very brief image of someone still alive. I can now see why the proxuver may not have shown a clear view of the second female body in the background of the same image - reason being thst the other female was already dead,  and fits the dignigy and respect anhle having been spoken  about by some...

Mike, do you believe this yourself?

[mike tesko]

Format and quality for image (a) is not consistant with the year the documentary was filmed. How was it possible,  for actresses to know over two decades before the documentary was being filmed and broadcast, what to do?
 

[Jane]

Format and quality for image (a) is not consistant with the year the documentary was filmed. How was it possible,  for actresses to know over two decades before the documentary was being filmed and broadcast, qhat to d

Mike, all an actress needs is a script. The rest is down to producer, director, cameraman, lighting, make-up artist, hairdresser, wardrobe mistress and if necessary, prosthetics expert.

[mike tesko]

Mike, all an actress needs is a script. The rest is down to producer, director, cameraman, lighting, make-up artist, hairdresser, wardrobe mistress and if necessary, prosthetics expert.

You can't fake format and quality of film, so that it matches the firmat and quality of the other image (c)...

This informs me that the footage is real...

[Alias]

You can't fake format and quality of film, so that it matches the firmat and quality of the other image (c)...

This informs me that the footage is real...

Many uploaded videos on Youtube are of a lousy quality. If you watch it, you will also notice that the audio is out of sync.

[Jane]

You can't fake format and quality of film, so that it matches the firmat and quality of the other image (c)...

This informs me that the footage is real...

Mike, there is nothing in this world that CAN'T be faked but IMO, the film makers were never TRYING to tell us that this was the real deal videoed at the time it took place. Only with the confines of what the film maker created can the footage be said to be real.

[Caroline]

You can't fake format and quality of film, so that it matches the firmat and quality of the other image (c)...

This informs me that the footage is real...

I think everyone here knows that it was a reconstruction but why would EP give a video clip to a TV company that shows a different crime scene to the one they described and photographed? The furniture is different - in fact the scene bares no relation to the actual crime scene depicted in the official pictures. I can say with 100% certainty that these pictures will have absolutely no impact in setting Jeremy free.

[Jane]

I think everyone here knows that it was a reconstruction but why would EP give a video clip to a TV company that shows a different crime scene to the one they described and photographed? The furniture is different - in fact the scene bares no relation to the actual crime scene depicted in the official pictures. I can say with 100% certainty that these pictures will have absolutely no impact in setting Jeremy free.

So I guess it makes absolutely NO difference, what so ever, if Mike believes they're the video clip taken at the time and we believe it to be a poor reconstruction -using artistic licence- who's only value is what it provided in entertainment.