Sheila's hands

[lebaleb]

No she didn't. Venezis didn't think they were nail marks and he is a trained eye, the killer may have jabbed them with the poker or some other object.

[smiffy]

His "trained eye" failed him then .... he failed to report the lacerations/gouges and gave a totally bull story for how he thinks the "bruises" could have been made.



COULD ...I shall quantify here as being  an extremely remote could have been the cause  ie  a tiny fraction of a percent chance of being the cause.

Using the word "could".....so what were the alernatives for using could means the writer is able to think of alternatives or even knows of alternatives that are far more credible.

As for the .22  rifle being the cause...
Any one who thinks such I declare to be a FOOL and ask them to show which part of the rifle they claim could have caused the marks and how.
I know they cannot answer that in any credible way ...mission impossible set.
Those marks on Ralphs right  arm..were NOT caused by the rifle.

There is no doubt at all that the injuries on Ralphs right arm were incorrectly described and in being incorrectly described had a wrong cause attributed to them giving a misleading quality. The ommision of what were obviously vital photographs from the trial in this regard also could be viewed as being misleading or worse .

[grahameb]

His "trained eye" failed him then .... he failed to report the lacerations/gouges and gave a totally bull story for how he thinks the "bruises" could have been made.



COULD ...I shall quantify here as being  an extremely remote could have been the cause  ie  a tiny fraction of a percent chance of being the cause.

Using the word "could".....so what were the alernatives for using could means the writer is able to think of alternatives or even knows of alternatives that are far more credible.

As for the .22  rifle being the cause...
Any one who thinks such I declare to be a FOOL and ask them to show which part of the rifle they claim could have caused the marks and how.
I know they cannot answer that in any credible way ...mission impossible set.
Those marks on Ralphs right  arm..were NOT caused by the rifle.

There is no doubt at all that the injuries on Ralphs right arm were incorrectly described and in being incorrectly described had a wrong cause attributed to them giving a misleading quality. The ommision of what were obviously vital photographs from the trial in this regard also could be viewed as being misleading or worse .

Good post +1

[smiffy]

From the submission of 2004 that sandy referred to ;

Whosoever attacked Ralph Neville Bamber had finger nails at least 5mm-6mm long and certainly no longer but positively not shorter. Had the finger nails been shorter they could not have inflicted the wounds on the right arm and a similar wound on the arm of June Bamber. Whilst it c an be stated that Defence Counsel and the Appellate Court could have raised questions owing to the inclusion of the post mortem photograph of June Bamber’s arm, without a correlating, corroborative and accurate witness statement from Professor Vanezis would indeed lead to the only conclusion as formed in para 42 from the Court of Appeal.

There is no reasonable doubt the marks on Ralphs right arm were not inflicted by finger nails and the bruising elements linked to them by a forceful grip.
What does bug me here is the finger nail claim lengths mentioned.

at least 5mm-6mm long and certainly no longer but positively not shorter.

I personally think the range being specified is rather tighter than it should be. The variables that would apply are very great so something as specific as is implied is not a safe statement to make.
At least 5mm to 6mm can mean at least 6mm....so is expressed wrongly as 5mm is positively less than 6mm. Certainly no longer if taken the other way means no longer than 5mm but certainly is a weaker claim if compared to the use of positively in the same sentence.

Therefore we quantify the writers claims as "certainly" is not what it first appears to be. The writer thus is not so certain that the nails could not have been longer than 6mm at all.

If we rephrase that a little we get a a better clearer understanding... The writer is not confident that the nails could have been longer than 6mm... In other words the nails that inflicted the wounds may indeed have been a bit longer than 6mm but not too much longer.

On the other hand at the miniumum length of 5mm being expressed the writer shows more confidence by using "positively" but has undermined this by using 5mm-6mm ...a range rather than a specific minimum length.  So realistically the writer is not all that condfident either in expressing a minium length so we can go beyond what the writer claims and allow for a minimum length of less than 5 mm.

Effectively  ...we can widen the range to more credible  figures in a safer way.
We express the estimated  minimum length of nail as being 4mm and the estimated maximum length of nail as being 7mm.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oddly another part of the same 2004 submission does appear strange;

The finger nails of Sheila Caffell were examined. A post mortem photograph of her hands was indeed made available and formed part of the “Jury Bundle.” The said finger nails of Sheila Caffell were too long to have caused the laceration/indentation marks on the arm of Ralph Neville Bamber and the singer mark on the arm of June Bamber. The Prosecuting Authorities failed however, to take any scraping from under her finger nails. The results could indeed have been matched to the finger nail lacerations on the arm of both Ralph Neville Bamber and June Bamber and could either have been proved conclusive and consistent with an attack from Sheila Caffell or exculpatory. Had the results of such tests been made known to the Defence,  the Applicant and his then legal team may well have defended the case not by alleging the murderer was Sheila Caffell but indeed elected to state it was a third party

The line being taken is that neither Jeremy nor Sheila could have inflicted the fingernail wounds exhibited on Ralphs arm...IF THIS IS INDEED TRUE...then some real big stink is behind all this!!!

On the other hand , questions need to be raised as the claim that Sheila's fingernails were too long is not backed up other than by a loose claim  of a pathological examination and a post mortem photograph being presented without detailing information of actual fingernail lengths.

now look at this part;

The said finger nails of Sheila Caffell were too long to have caused the laceration/indentation marks on the arm of Ralph Neville Bamber and the singer mark on the arm of June Bamber.

Please note the use of the word "and".
This is a vital link  and how it is expressed allows for  the finger nail claims to be TRUE only if it can be applied to both victims. If  it cannot be applied to say June Bamber it does not follow that it could apply that the fingernails were too long for the injury on Ralph Bamber and vice versa.
In other words one of the victims ..the fingernails were too long for and the other they were not too long for.

But then there is more ;

 The Prosecuting Authorities failed however, to take any scraping from under her finger nails. The results could indeed have been matched to the finger nail lacerations on the arm of both Ralph Neville Bamber and June Bamber and could either have been proved conclusive and consistent with an attack from Sheila Caffell or exculpatory.

To make this argument shows the lack of confidence in the claims about the finger nails being too long . Thus the claims about the finger nails being too long is weak or not correctly founded at all so it falls that in reality the writer is open to the finger nails being a possible credible source for the fingernail marks on Ralphs arm.
Sheila is thus not discounted at all from being the cause of the fingernail marks on Ralphs arm.

[smiffy]

Lady Chelmsey posted;

The butt of the rifle,I presume,was used to strike Ralph round the head causing his skull to fracture.Could the rifle have not become broken this way?

Just how does the use of striking Ralph in the head with the .22 rifle (broken butt/stock one) actually stand up to scrutiny.

Taking the prosecution angle of Ralph being shot either 3 or 4 times in the bedroom would mean either and these cannot be the 4 fatal type later head shots..then it follows that he had to have an 1 or 2 gunshot injuries in his mouth /jaw area...unless of course the bullet cases are totally useless as evidence and any inferrals relied on their placement in the house be utterly ignored.

Ok taken these mouth/jaw injuries exist at this time we will have plenty of blood coming from them.
Using the butt/stock of the rifle to bludgeon Ralphs already bloodied and injured face at this time is going to be a very messy business leading to a lot of blood etc flying about and quantities of blood ending up on the rifle butt/stock. Such bludgeoning of Ralph with the butt/stock of the rifle places the assailant very close to Ralph and with a virtual certainty of being well soaked in splashing blood or contact smears of blood from Ralph...a very messy business.

Whoever your assailant of choice....they will end up with blood on them....mostly on their lower half  but also credibly on their upper body.

The blood on the walls in the stairway seem more converant with a bloodied arms .

Problem is...if we take it (contrary to other evidence) that Ralph already had gunshot wounds to mouth and jaw prior to attack with butt of rilfle then our assailant will be well messed up in blood.

Our assailant needs to clean up themselves /and or clothes massively.  If JB then we should expect a bloodied exit window ..none found . If Sheila...then was she naked or underwear only ?...and had a shower afterwards..

OR THERE AGAIN...the bullet wounds to Ralphs jaw and mouth happened in the kitchen after being bludgeoned seems more credible...OR the rifle butt/stock was not used to bludgeon Ralph at all.

Where the bullet cases were is not proof of anything and cannot be used to found theories on that are undermined by  sound reasoning. Anyone...involved ...could have moved or knocked bullet cases around wittingly or otherwise.

[lebaleb]

His "trained eye" failed him then .... he failed to report the lacerations/gouges and gave a totally bull story for how he thinks the "bruises" could have been made.



COULD ...I shall quantify here as being  an extremely remote could have been the cause  ie  a tiny fraction of a percent chance of being the cause.

Using the word "could".....so what were the alernatives for using could means the writer is able to think of alternatives or even knows of alternatives that are far more credible.

As for the .22  rifle being the cause...
Any one who thinks such I declare to be a FOOL and ask them to show which part of the rifle they claim could have caused the marks and how.
I know they cannot answer that in any credible way ...mission impossible set.
Those marks on Ralphs right  arm..were NOT caused by the rifle.

There is no doubt at all that the injuries on Ralphs right arm were incorrectly described and in being incorrectly described had a wrong cause attributed to them giving a misleading quality. The ommision of what were obviously vital photographs from the trial in this regard also could be viewed as being misleading or worse .

You just can't win, I've already been criticised for using 'would' instead of could', now I can't use 'could'.

[sandy]

No she didn't. Venezis didn't think they were nail marks and he is a trained eye, the killer may have jabbed them with the poker or some other object.

Indeed so, I think I will accept the opinion of a qualified pathologist any day over that of someone who hasn't even seen the body never mind examined it.

Pure fantasy as usual.   

[lebaleb]

Excuse my ignorance but what is a 'singer mark'?

[clifford]

Lebaleb, do you know if this blood was tested to find out if it was Shiela,s blood.

[sandy]

Excuse my ignorance but what is a 'singer mark'?

Someone already asked me that a few days ago, I believe it is a misprint in the original text and should be a 'single mark'.

[smiffy]

sandy posted;

Indeed so, I think I will accept the opinion of a qualified pathologist any day over that of someone who hasn't even seen the body never mind examined it.

so you have no common sense then sandy;
You prefer blatant untruth from someone who has  a qualification over the truth from an impartial observer.
That makes your judgement worthless and gives you a credibility of zero.
You clearly cannot reasonably debate any issues so may well be ignored .

so you know the pathologist lied or made a gross error.... so you know jb was fitted up..so what is your motive sandy? 
shows you have a nasty disposition in my view.
try redeeming yourself by saying something credible and wothy..or are you a no hoper?

[sandy]

Nasty is apparently your mo if the posts over the last few days are anything to go by.

For someone who has little experience of the case you certainly have grasped the wrong end of the stick.

[smiffy]

I have a far better grasp on things over a short time than you have ever had it seems sandy.
Maybe that is down to my suprior intelligence and knowledge and wide experiences compared to yours and that I have no need to mislead or disrupt .

see no... baggage being carried...no bias one way or another or vested interests..but you appear to be carrying loads sandy..poor you.

[sandy]

Empty cans.....

[smiffy]

sandy...you declared in another post in which you were being hostile to another poster that you clearly are not open minded at all in regards to this case.
That is wierd...unless you have an agenda..an agenda that does not sit well with discovery of the truth by others.

It is clear beyond ANY doubt a female gouged Ralph's arm that night. You cant deny it ..however much you want to...you know its true..and remains true despite all your fanciful claims and your desire for it not to be true.
It wont go away, sandy, the beliefs you hold or want others to hold face destruction utterly and totally.
you know it...I know it.

You post here sandy because you wish to deny the truth and fear and feel threatened by the undeniable truth coming out.. ..

I am not just good sandy..I am brilliant...and you wont like me and what I will be doing one little bit...

comment away ...for it will not stop the unstoppable...

I will have a nice day..