What makes Bamber innocent?

[mike tesko]

I beg to differ!

...

[lookout]

Well, of course, you're fully entitled to call it what you like. However, I'D have said that "expiated" blood would have covered a far greater area.

Not coming from a dying person it wouldn't be everywhere,for obvious reasons.

[mike tesko]

As many as you like - it's NOT even the same colour.

Your explanation is a pathetic excuse for just wanting to oppose the fact that 'there was clearly expiated blood present upon that nightdress', and I'm not bothered what colour you say it has to be, or what it is, what else could it be?

[lebaleb]

I beg to differ!

The leggings are shown draped over the banister on the landing. There are only three newel posts level before the corner. The leggings by necessity are draped there. If the leggings had been hung where you suggest they would slide down the stairs.

[mike tesko]

The leggings are shown draped over the banister on the landing. There are only three newel posts level before the corner. The leggings by necessity are draped there. If the leggings had been hung where you suggest they would slide down the stairs.

I agree...

[mike tesko]

Were cops ' undressing the female victims', and rinsing away any incriminating evidence which might prove that cops had been abusing the victims in that bedroom?

[mike tesko]

Were cops ' undressing the female victims', and rinsing away any incriminating evidence which might prove that cops had been abusing the victims in that bedroom?

I mean, this light blue coloured leggings have clearly only very recently been washed. So, why weren't they mentioned by any of the cops who raided the house, or by SOCO's who took exhibits? Seems to me to be important evidence that cops hid away from everybody...

Who had been wearing them?

Surely not June Bamber because her legs were saturated with blood staining...

This leaves only Sheila - no wonder her legs appeared to have been so clean. Cops took Sheila'leggings off, when she was on top of the bed, and raised the hem of her light blue nightdress and took indecent images of her because she had been a model and was known to be an attractive young woman. That's it, that's what cops did, and that's why 'they washed' Sheila's light blue leggings because in cops haste to remove them from her body, they left incriminating evidence upon them, which they washed off afterwards. I have no doubt whatsoever that the missing 7 negatives from negative strip 00021 that were taken in 'that' bedroom,  captured the extent of the abuse directed at Sheila Caffell who was 'not even dead' by 'that' stage...

[sami]

YOu can't grab someone with the back of your hand!

you can in mikes mind

[sami]

Jeremy Bambers prospects of winning his appeal have just improved dramatically because of the 'fresh evidence' I have just uncovered...

which appeal.he wont be getting anymore appeals

[Jane]

I mean, this light blue coloured leggings have clearly only very recently been washed. So, why weren't they mentioned by any of the cops who raided the house, or by SOCO's who took exhibits? Seems to me to be important evidence that cops hid away from everybody...

Who had been wearing them?

Surely not June Bamber because her legs were saturated with blood staining...

This leaves only Sheila - no wonder her legs appeared to have been so clean. Cops took Sheila'leggings off, when she was on top of the bed, and raised the hem of her light blue nightdress and took indecent images of her because she had been a model and was known to be an attractive young woman. That's it, that's what cops did, and that's why 'they washed' Sheila's light blue leggings because in cops haste to remove them from her body, they left incriminating evidence upon them, which they washed off afterwards. I have no doubt whatsoever that the missing 7 negatives from negative strip 00021 that were taken in 'that' bedroom,  captured the extent of the abuse directed at Sheila Caffell who was 'not even dead' by 'that' stage...

I see no evidence of a recently washed garment but I expect you'll say they were still dripping. In which case, such material would have doubled in length because it stretches when wet. It also occurs to me, if my memory is correct, that those who described Sheila's attire that afternoon made no mention of "light blue leggings".

[sami]

common sense.tells me that if ep hid evidence for 30 years ,than they are hardly going to release  it now or in the future.they  will destroy it ,if they havent already done so,so where the evidence for a new appeal is going to come from.i dont know,mike might

[Caroline]

I mean, this light blue coloured leggings have clearly only very recently been washed. So, why weren't they mentioned by any of the cops who raided the house, or by SOCO's who took exhibits? Seems to me to be important evidence that cops hid away from everybody...

Who had been wearing them?

Surely not June Bamber because her legs were saturated with blood staining...

This leaves only Sheila - no wonder her legs appeared to have been so clean. Cops took Sheila'leggings off, when she was on top of the bed, and raised the hem of her light blue nightdress and took indecent images of her because she had been a model and was known to be an attractive young woman. That's it, that's what cops did, and that's why 'they washed' Sheila's light blue leggings because in cops haste to remove them from her body, they left incriminating evidence upon them, which they washed off afterwards. I have no doubt whatsoever that the missing 7 negatives from negative strip 00021 that were taken in 'that' bedroom,  captured the extent of the abuse directed at Sheila Caffell who was 'not even dead' by 'that' stage...

Who said they have just been washed? There is nothing in any of the pictures that she they had just been washed.

The rest of your post doesn't even warrant comment. None of that happened and I would hope that decent minded people would protest to your post - that is, if there are any left here!

[mike tesko]

you can in mikes mind

stop being ridiculous...

It is quite obvious that Sheila was the person who had 'grabbed' her mother by the throat to try and kill her. The presence of corresponding linear marks upon Junes throat and the top part of Sheila's right hand provides confirmation of this. It is very obvious as to why Sheila's hand got marked as it did, because Junes neck was grabbed below where the corresponding blood on her throat was present. Sheila grabbed her mother slightly below where this blood was, and as a result of her mothers head lolling forwards and sideways trying to struggle free of Shiela's grip, marks were left on the top part of Sheila's right hand. Nothing could be clearer. The pathologist, Peter Venezis knew that the killer had grabbed June by the throat because he said as much when he testified during the trial. He would have known and did know about the blood that was present upon the top part of Sheila's right hand, and he would almost certainly have concluded that it had got there at the time Sheila was trying to throttle her mother, on that occasion since Sheila did not have possession or control of the loaded anshuzt rifle, otherwise she would have kept shooting at her mother, not trying to strangle her. We also know that the killer only shot June with Five bullets whilst June was in her bed. Which means does it not, that either the shooter was satisfied that enough bullets had been fired into her mother to have killed her, or that Sheila had run out of bullets...

This makes me think, that Sheila had already used five or six rounds up already, or that she knew she needed the other bullets still loaded in the gun to try to kill off her dad...

Had Sheila killed off dad, before she started to shoot her mother in bed?

I personally now do not think so, I think the remaining bullets were needed to try and kill her dad...

[Jane]

I mean, this light blue coloured leggings have clearly only very recently been washed. So, why weren't they mentioned by any of the cops who raided the house, or by SOCO's who took exhibits? Seems to me to be important evidence that cops hid away from everybody...

Who had been wearing them?

Surely not June Bamber because her legs were saturated with blood staining...

This leaves only Sheila - no wonder her legs appeared to have been so clean. Cops took Sheila'leggings off, when she was on top of the bed, and raised the hem of her light blue nightdress and took indecent images of her because she had been a model and was known to be an attractive young woman. That's it, that's what cops did, and that's why 'they washed' Sheila's light blue leggings because in cops haste to remove them from her body, they left incriminating evidence upon them, which they washed off afterwards. I have no doubt whatsoever that the missing 7 negatives from negative strip 00021 that were taken in 'that' bedroom,  captured the extent of the abuse directed at Sheila Caffell who was 'not even dead' by 'that' stage...

Have you been reading porn, Mike? The above suggestion is getting pretty close to you posting such.

[mike tesko]

Who said they have just been washed? There is nothing in any of the pictures that she they had just been washed.

The rest of your post doesn't even warrant comment. None of that happened and I would hope that decent minded people would protest to your post - that is, if there are any left here!

Now, first of all, don't you or anybody else try to tell me what to say. I have seen the disgusting photographs that these so called decent cops took of Sheila on the bed, you haven't so maybe that does not entitle you to the same view or opinion as me. Yes, the images they took are indecent, and no doubt that's why 7 associated images have been removed from the disclosed material. In so far as to whom did those blue leggings belong too, I don't think they belonged to June Bamber, or had been worn by her during her death struggle. I don't think they belonged to Ralph Bamber, because he was photographed downstairs in his pyjama bottoms. I don't think any of the cops had been wearing them, so that leaves Sheila Caffell. Now, it seems to me that you are not interested in getting at the truth in this case, because it is important to know which of the two females was wearing those blue leggings at the scene. I don't think it was June Bamber because of all the blood running down her legs. On the other hand, I am firmly of the belief that because Sheila Caffells legs appear to have been so clean, that 'she' was the wearer of them. Moving on from this, it needs to be found out, when, and whom had removed those key leggings, and lastly but not least, who had washed them or rinsed them out?