The Murders at White House Farm - By Carol Ann Lee (A Taster!)

[Caroline]

You always do stick with the expert and judge even though life experience should teach everyone that such people are not infallible.
As Caroline has already stated Vanezis' first handwritten statement said Sheila had blood on the Palm of her hand. As he is a professional, why do you ignore this?

Cheers Maggie - the guy actually wrote that she had blood on her right hand on the day he conducted the autopsy. I believe that Jeremy is guilty but I won't ignore such anomalies - to do so is being disingenuous. However, regardless of what Scip says the stain clearly looks like a palm print.

I'll leave other people to decide what the print is - but would still like to see Scips experiment!

[maggie]

Cheers Maggie - the guy actually wrote that she had blood on her right hand on the day he conducted the autopsy. I believe that Jeremy is guilty but I won't ignore such anomalies - to do so is being disingenuous.

Good for you, I agree the truth is important, whoever it supports or not isn't the point. It's disingenuous to ignore facts because they don't fit your personal theory imo.

[Caroline]

Good for you, I agree the truth is important, whoever it supports or not isn't the point. It's disingenuous to ignore facts because they don't fit your personal theory imo.

Exactly! 

[scipio_usmc]

So what? Did you not read Venezis's written report? I'm not making this shit up Scip - he actually wrote that Sheila had blood on her right hand. You can ignore it or make excuses but that's what he wrote.

Stick with who you like but you haven't doomed anything - that's simply your arrogance showing.

Where is your experiment?

You are making it up.

Do you mean his autopsy report that I quoted from to prove you wrong?  The report where he said she had blood on her wrist which she transferred to her gown but noted no blood on her fingers or palms.





Numerous experts have since discussed the issue of her putting her outer wrist/outer palm to her throat to plug the wound, getting blood on such areas and then getting it onto her gown. There is nothing about activities which would get blood inside her hand or any observations of blood inside her hand. 

I'm not reinventing the wheel, I'm just following the established evidence in this case. 

 

This is a wall hit by a substantial amount more medium velocity spatter than the rifle was hit with. With staining patterns similar to this on the rifle would touching it totally coat the hand?  No you will have spots in isolated places and you will see gaps if the hand touching it then transferred the blood to something else. That is why many palm prints and the like are partial you don't see a whole hand print unless someone is stabbing someone and thus there is plenty of blood flow.

Gloves are not going to change this the gloves would not be fully coated they would have the blood on sporadically unless Jeremy decided to stick his glove covered hand in a pool of blood.  I can't imagine how or why he would do such though. 





 

 

[Caroline]

You are making it up.

Do you mean his autopsy report that I quoted from to prove you wrong?  The report where he said she had blood on her wrist which she transferred to her gown but noted no blood on her fingers or palms.





Numerous experts have since discussed the issue of her putting her outer wrist/outer palm to her throat to plug the wound, getting blood on such areas and then getting it onto her gown. There is nothing about activities which would get blood inside her hand or any observations of blood inside her hand. 

I'm not reinventing the wheel, I'm just following the established evidence in this case. 

 

This is a wall hit by a substantial amount more medium velocity spatter than the rifle was hit with. With staining patterns similar to this on the rifle would touching it totally coat the hand?  No you will have spots in isolated places and you will see gaps if the hand touching it then transferred the blood to something else. That is why many palm prints and the like are partial you don't see a whole hand print unless someone is stabbing someone and thus there is plenty of blood flow.

Gloves are not going to change this the gloves would not be fully coated they would have the blood on sporadically unless Jeremy decided to stick his glove covered hand in a pool of blood.  I can't imagine how or why he would do such though.

OMG! I haven't made ANYTHING UP - you are such a megalomaniac that you never consider someone else might know more than you! Why would I make a statement up? They can be checked just as this one can! READ it! 

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,451.0.html

I'm not going to get personal with you - I think you're funny when you NEED  to be right. In this instance - you're simply NOT! 

Where is your experiment?

[scipio_usmc]

OMG! I haven't made ANYTHING UP - you are such a megalomaniac that you never consider someone else might know more than you! Why would I make a statement up? They can be checked just as this one can! READ it! 

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,451.0.html

I'm not going to get personal with you - I think you're funny when you NEED  to be right. In this instance - you're simply NOT! 

Where is your experiment?

I don't need to be right I am right.  His notes simply confirms the same thing she had blood on her outer palm/outer wrist and transferred it to her gown.  Nothing about blood on the inside of her hands.

I posted the experiment already post 732 of this thread.

[David1819]

OMG! I haven't made ANYTHING UP - you are such a megalomaniac that you never consider someone else might know more than you! Why would I make a statement up? They can be checked just as this one can! READ it! 

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,451.0.html

I'm not going to get personal with you - I think you're funny when you NEED  to be right. In this instance - you're simply NOT! 

Where is your experiment?

Ive blocked scipio so I no longer see his posts for those reasons youve mentioned. It's quiet a relief, I can't be bothered with that deluded xxxxxxxx anymore. 

[scipio_usmc]

Ive blocked scipio so I no longer see his posts for those reasons youve mentioned. It's quiet a relief, I can't be bothered with that deluded xxxxxxxx anymore.

Still projecting to the bitter end.  You have the delusions not me.  I completely crushed you in debate and you responded by throwing a tantrum and childishly attacking my religion.  I will still refute all your nonsense and you can pretend you can't read my posts as a cop-out for not being able to respond.

  This all started because you ERRONEOUSLY claimed June's DNA being found in the moderator increases the odds of the blood removed in 1985 being a mixture of June and Nevill's blood.

After I proved you wrong you made matters worse by insisting the COA was on your side and agreed with you.  I pointed out that the COA disagreed with such position.

Rather than admit you were wrong you posted a section of the COA decision summarizing the CCRC's suggestions and said see they agree with you.  You ignored that the judges then proceeded to reject that position.

Next you said this wasn't your idea it was Webster's.  But I posted evidence proving Webster rejects this as well.

Rather than admit your error you then changed course away form DNA to the general issue of whether the chance of it being a mixture was remote or not.  You argue it wasn't remote and adopt Webster's opinion.  I pointed out how Webster's opinion is rejected by the scientific community and he is unable to provide any support for his claims.  You respond by saying he has credentials and you choose to believe him just because he has credentials. Aside form that being an extremely childish position the most laughable part is that you rejected his opinions about the DNA.  You are not even consistent.  His credentials are not enough to convince you he is right about the DNA and ironically he was bale to back up his position with respect to the DNA his arguments there actually are supported by scientific literature and accepted by other experts as true.

Here is analogy to what you are doing:

Respected scientist publishes a paper on volcanoes which makes assertions and relies upon testing and observations by others to help support his position.  He has scientific literature on his side other experts agree with him.

He writes an article speculating the Earth is really flat and disagrees with the experts who say it is spherical.  He provides no evidence to support his contentions he simply offers rank conjecture.

You decide to reject his volcano claims but accept his flat Earth claims saying you do so because he is an expert though you failed to adopt his well supported claims on the basis he is an expert and rejected the despite not having any good reason to do so.

You hate me because the debate proved totally humiliating to you.

[Jane]

Good for you, I agree the truth is important, whoever it supports or not isn't the point. It's disingenuous to ignore facts because they don't fit your personal theory imo.

But if ones NEED to be right is pathological, all those important relevancies you point out will be ignored. The goal is everything.

[lookout]

But if ones NEED to be right is pathological, all those important relevancies you point out will be ignored. The goal is everything.

How sad to be like that.

[Adam]

Ive blocked scipio so I no longer see his posts for those reasons youve mentioned. It's quiet a relief, I can't be bothered with that deluded xxxxxxxx anymore.

I don't think that will bother Scipio much.

[Jane]

Still projecting to the bitter end.  You have the delusions not me.  I completely crushed you in debate and you responded by throwing a tantrum and childishly attacking my religion.  I will still refute all your nonsense and you can pretend you can't read my posts as a cop-out for not being able to respond.

  This all started because you ERRONEOUSLY claimed June's DNA being found in the moderator increases the odds of the blood removed in 1985 being a mixture of June and Nevill's blood.

After I proved you wrong you made matters worse by insisting the COA was on your side and agreed with you.  I pointed out that the COA disagreed with such position.

Rather than admit you were wrong you posted a section of the COA decision summarizing the CCRC's suggestions and said see they agree with you.  You ignored that the judges then proceeded to reject that position.

Next you said this wasn't your idea it was Webster's.  But I posted evidence proving Webster rejects this as well.

Rather than admit your error you then changed course away form DNA to the general issue of whether the chance of it being a mixture was remote or not.  You argue it wasn't remote and adopt Webster's opinion.  I pointed out how Webster's opinion is rejected by the scientific community and he is unable to provide any support for his claims.  You respond by saying he has credentials and you choose to believe him just because he has credentials. Aside form that being an extremely childish position the most laughable part is that you rejected his opinions about the DNA.  You are not even consistent.  His credentials are not enough to convince you he is right about the DNA and ironically he was bale to back up his position with respect to the DNA his arguments there actually are supported by scientific literature and accepted by other experts as true.

Here is analogy to what you are doing:

Respected scientist publishes a paper on volcanoes which makes assertions and relies upon testing and observations by others to help support his position.  He has scientific literature on his side other experts agree with him.

He writes an article speculating the Earth is really flat and disagrees with the experts who say it is spherical.  He provides no evidence to support his contentions he simply offers rank conjecture.

You decide to reject his volcano claims but accept his flat Earth claims saying you do so because he is an expert though you failed to adopt his well supported claims on the basis he is an expert and rejected the despite not having any good reason to do so.

You hate me because the debate proved totally humiliating to you.

Scipio, I have no objections to you being right -in fact, I commend you for demolishing rubbish- but I have serious doubts about your motives. I CRINGE when you use "hate" "humiliate" "crush", ALL, IMO, quite unnecessary. However, I emphatically DO defend your right to hit out when your religion is attacked.

[lookout]

 The undercurrent leading to the disturbance inside the farmhouse that night must have been unbearable with BOTH women facing an uncertain future as regards seeing the twins ever again. Because Sheila was not compliant in moving nearer to WHF and because June wasn't well enough to lend a helping hand with the welfare of the boys ( suggesting foster care as a respite ) and the fact that Colin wanted to take over their care on a full-time basis,is it any wonder that the atmosphere exploded ?
If we find out that Sheila had made a previous attempt on taking her life,then this time,she'd want to take her boys with her rather than leave them behind in a life full of uncertainties.
Murders of this type where people have mental health issues DO happen when a patient hasn't been taking their medication.

[lookout]

I'm not sure that I want to read any more nonsense about this case which has already been blown up out of all proportion.

[susan]

Scipio, I have no objections to you being right -in fact, I commend you for demolishing rubbish- but I have serious doubts about your motives. I CRINGE when you use "hate" "humiliate" "crush", ALL, IMO, quite unnecessary. However, I emphatically DO defend your right to hit out when your religion is attacked.

Jane J again another excellent post from you.  Scipio has taken his share of  abuse on this forum and has never complained.  I agree the use of some of his words leaves much to be desired and I honestly think they are empty words with no  personal insults intended it is just the way he is and he has posted more positive information on this forum than negative.