Bamber's best option after the first shot did not kill Sheila:

[Jane]

I am curious, does anyone know if after Sheila was shot the first time and the killer had chosen to suffocate her with a pillow to finish her off rather than taking the risk of a second shot, would the pathologist have been able to tell she had been suffocated and not just died of her wound? 

Possibly   Probably?  Yes

[maggie]

usually asphyxiation leaves the eyes blood shot and traces of carbon dioxide in the body tissue.

Of course it does, thanks Caroline was just being lazy and using someone else's brain instead of looking it up.....  who needs Google 

[maggie]

Over 30 'No comments' & 'can't remembers'. Over 10 -don't knows' & 'can't say'.

Several one word answers as well as vague answers such as 'not really', 'I think so'  & 'less than 40 but more than 10 !'

The police had to often ask the same simple questions several times in order to get a straight answer. He initially said he phoned Mugford before the police & could not remember what they spoke about at 3am. He eventually said Mugford was phoned after the police phone call.

Then there are his three laughable reasons for Sheila's second shot.

Adam, can you temper your language... there's nothing remotely laughable about Sheila's second and fatal wound.

[Adam]

Hi Adam, If Jeremy Bamber had expected to kill Sheila with the first shot to the neck, do you think (know) he panicked when he found he hadn't killed her and without any thought shot her again?  have you considered (know) why didn't he suffocate her instead?  Sheila would have been unconscious or at least seriously incapacitated he could easily have put a pillow over her head or shot her in the head, mouth?  Wouldn't it have made far more sense if he had staged the second shot through the roof of her mouth as that would have seemed easier for Sheila to do?

Well one of my options was suffocation. I would have to find out more about that. See how easy it is and how long it takes. Together with what sort of evidence is left.

He may well have panicked and fired a second shot. After so many shots were fired into each individual, he may have thought no one would notice just two shots in Sheila. It was a weak rifle.

[Adam]

Adam, can you temper your language... there's nothing remotely laughable about Sheila's second and fatal wound.

I'm afraid Bamber's three reason's for Sheila's second shot are 'laughable'. 

[lookout]

 You're completely without emotion.What a horrible thing to say !

[Jane]

Well one of my options was suffocation. I would have to find out more about that. See how easy it is and how long it takes. Together with what sort of evidence is left.

He may well have panicked and fired a second shot. After so many shots were fired into each individual, he may have thought no one would notice just two shots in Sheila. It was a weak rifle.

Awww POOR rifle. Perhaps it needed crutches........................or perhaps there is simply NO SUCH THING. Just because it may not have been the BEST weapon of it's type doesn't make it "weak" -or feeble, either.

[Adam]

Adam, can you temper your language... there's nothing remotely laughable about Sheila's second and fatal wound.

As you said to me 'I will post to you however I want'.

I will post how I want. But won't call posters xxxxxp, 'xxxxxxxxx, 'xxxxxxxx etc. If I think something about the case is 'laughable' I will say so. Actually a lot of the case is laughable.

Although I did call a poster a xxxx recently after two xxxx about me. But two moderators confirmed that is acceptable after I reported xxxxxxx for calling me one.

[maggie]

As you said to me 'I will post to you however I want'.

I will post how I want. But won't call posters xxxxxp, 'xxxxxxxxx, 'xxxxxxxx etc. If I think something about the case is 'laughable' I will say so. Actually a lot of the case is laughable.

Although I did call a poster a xxxx recently after two xxxx about me. But two moderators confirmed that is acceptable after I reported xxxxxxx for calling me one.

No need to be quite so rude.

[Jane]

As you said to me 'I will post to you however I want'.

I will post how I want. But won't call posters 'prats', 'Arseholes', 'perverts' etc. If I think something about the case is 'laughable' I will say so. Actually a lot of the case is laughable.

Although I did call a poster a 'liar' recently after two lies about me. But two moderators confirmed that is acceptable after I reported Lookout for calling me one.

That's absolutely fine Adam. I guess you can post whatever you like as long as you realize that it will be YOU, not Maggie, who gets a ban. I'd watch it. The next on could be permanent.

[Adam]

Awww POOR rifle. Perhaps it needed crutches........................or perhaps there is simply NO SUCH THING. Just because it may not have been the BEST weapon of it's type doesn't make it "weak" -or feeble, either.

I don't think it needed crutches. Perhaps a poll is needed.

It was a weak rifle. Weather it was a better option than a shot gun, there is a thread already created.

[Adam]

This could be a reason why Bamber didn't try to suffocate Sheila.

'In these cases where a forensic pathologist is called upon to try and determine the cause of death one of the first things he or she will do if there are no discernable wounds or marks is to check the deceased's eyes.

If suffocation or smothering has taken place then the eyes of the deceased will be bloodshot; this is a common way of accurately determining that one of these methods has been employed'.

[susan]

Adam
I cannot understand why you are so rude to Maggie she has been very tolerant with you lately and I think you should thank her.

[Jane]

This could be a reason why Bamber didn't try to suffocate Sheila.

'In these cases where a forensic pathologist is called upon to try and determine the cause of death one of the first things he or she will do if there are no discernable wounds or marks is to check the deceased's eyes.

If suffocation or smothering has taken place then the eyes of the deceased will be bloodshot; this is a common way of accurately determining that one of these methods has been employed'.

Perhaps you'd like to do a study of those cases where people have employed self suffocation as a means of committing suicide.

[Adam]

'Throughout the investigation of a death by suffocation or smothering the pathologist will look for the tell tale signs: the bloodshot eyes, the high levels of carbon dioxide in the blood and will also look for bruising around the nose and mouth and may even collect trace evidence such as hairs and fibres from around the nose and mouth of the deceased'.