The twins.

[Adam]

Police did then.

Was it the 'treacherous' Stan Jones ?

I am just going by David who says Sheila was sitting up when shot. And the 2002 appeal which said Sheila's legs were pulled after the second shot.

It was impossible for one bullet to the neck to move Sheila's lower body at least two feet forward.



You need to defend you're breakdown. I've mentioned a few holes to start with.

[David1819]

Was it the 'treacherous' Stan Jones ?

I am just going by David who says Sheila was sitting up when shot. And the 2002 appeal which said Sheila's legs were pulled after the second shot.

It was impossible for one bullet to the neck to move Sheila's lower body at least two feet forward.



You need to defend you're breakdown. I've mentioned a few holes to start with.

Adam you might want to read section 520 on ismali's evidence

520. Our conclusion was that we should not therefore admit the evidence and we have had no regard to it in reaching our conclusion. It can, however, be said about it that if it had been called at trial, it may well have represented yet another formidable string to the prosecution's bow in a case where even without any regard to that evidence, it has to be said that the prosecution were able to put forward a very strong case pointing to guilt.


Then you have the police notes saying there were not happy about the position of Sheila in the photos compared to how they originally found her. (Thus indicating they moved her)

We know they moved the hand and the gun for taking photos, indoing so they have moved the dress fabrics slightly leading Ismail to his conclusion.  However In my opinion I think its all just a trick on the eyes by the different angles the photos are taken in causing people to make parallax errors 

[Caroline]

Adam you might want to read section 520 on ismali's evidence

520. Our conclusion was that we should not therefore admit the evidence and we have had no regard to it in reaching our conclusion. It can, however, be said about it that if it had been called at trial, it may well have represented yet another formidable string to the prosecution's bow in a case where even without any regard to that evidence, it has to be said that the prosecution were able to put forward a very strong case pointing to guilt.


Then you have the police notes saying there were not happy about the position of Sheila in the photos compared to how they originally found her. (Thus indicating they moved her)

We know they moved the hand and the gun for taking photos, indoing so they have moved the dress fabrics slightly leading Ismail to his conclusion. However In my opinion I think its all just a trick on the eyes by the different angles the photos are taken in causing people to make parallax errors

You might be surprised, but I agree.

[Adam]

The police have never said they pulled Sheila's body two feet forward before the crime scene officers arrived.

I was  quite happy to believe Bamber shot Sheila as she was laying down.

But then got a double treat of the 2002 appeal, and you saying Sheila received her fatal bullet sitting up.

I did another 10 second experiment and made another 'forensic evidence breakthrough'. To move from sitting up to laying down, means I will have to use both my arms with some force to move my lower body several feet forward.

A bullet to the neck will not do this and the police had no reason to pull Sheila's body at least two feet forward.

[Adam]

I prasied Buddy for creating a breakdown. Virtially all supporters and former supporters have refused.

However a breakdown is supposed to match the crime scene evidence. Just as mine does.  Not be something totally different that has nothing to do with the crime scene evidence.

Hopefully he will defend or modify his breakdown.

[David1819]

The police have never said they pulled Sheila's body two feet forward before the crime scene officers arrived.

Neither the Police or Jeremy have any good reason to randomly pull Sheila's feet forward two feet. its likely no one done anything of the sort

I was  quite happy to believe Bamber shot Sheila as she was laying down.

But then got a double treat of the 2002 appeal, and you saying Sheila received her fatal bullet sitting up.

Yes sitting up back straight and not resting against the bedside table.

The fact you refer to these as treats seems to reinforce Jane's suggestion you 'hero worship' Jeremy

[Adam]

I'm trying to debate you're breakdown. And praise you for trying. Virtually all current and former supporters have refused.

It seems you believe Neville was sleeping when Sheila opened fire.

Neville heard the shots and went to the twins room where he was shot in the arm. This refutes the evidence.

Neville ran downstairs to phone Bamber and said 11 words to him. Then rang the police 26 minutes later.

Sheila shot June and now had no bullets. She then went downstairs to brutally beat Neville and knock him out. Without getting a mark on her although Neville just had one bullet in his arm.

Sheila then reloaded to fire more bullets into Neville.

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

Why does the evidence show Neville was shot four times from close range in the main bedroom ? 

And why did Neville choose to ring Bamber and not 999 for medical and police assistance ? To be honest it was much too late to do either. Sheila had a gun and was firing bullets.

What happened in the 26 minutes between Neville's call to Bamber and Neville's call to the police.

I am sure everyone agrees Buddy's breakdown is nothing to do with the massacre crime scene and forensic evidence.

[sami]

Neither the Police or Jeremy have any good reason to randomly pull Sheila's feet forward two feet. its likely no one done anything of the sort

Yes sitting up back straight and not resting against the bedside table.

The fact you refer to these as treats seems to reinforce Jane's suggestion you 'hero worship' Jeremy

might want to look at this.credit must go to alias for the photo and comments

[sami]

like jane has said before.after the first shot to the neck its unlikely sheila would be able to move her neck

[Caroline]

Neither the Police or Jeremy have any good reason to randomly pull Sheila's feet forward two feet. its likely no one done anything of the sort

Yes sitting up back straight and not resting against the bedside table.

The fact you refer to these as treats seems to reinforce Jane's suggestion you 'hero worship' Jeremy

However, I don't agree with that.

[Caroline]

might want to look at this

Had she been sitting up, she'd have whacked her head on the BS table as she feel backwards,

[Adam]

Neither the Police or Jeremy have any good reason to randomly pull Sheila's feet forward two feet. its likely no one done anything of the sort

Yes sitting up back straight and not resting against the bedside table.

The fact you refer to these as treats seems to reinforce Jane's suggestion you 'hero worship' Jeremy

Bamber pulled Sheila's feet forward as part of his frame. He wanted her lying down with the rifle nicely across her.

It is against police protocol to move Sheila's body prior to forensics and the photographer arriving.

I recommend you change you're stance and say Sheila shot herself laying down. And that the 2002 appeal is wrong.

Saying Sheila was sitting up is just supporting them as one shot to the neck will not move Sheila's lower body two feet forward. She would just die still sitting up.

[sami]

Had she been sitting up, she'd have whacked her head on the BS table as she feel backwards,

yes i agree.and there were no injuries or marks to the back of the head

[David1819]

However, I don't agree with that.

Then how do you explain the blood running down the nightie as if she was sitting in an upwards position then fell back?

[Adam]

If Sheila is sitting up, then her body instantly becomes lifeless after the fatal shot. She will remain in exactly the same position.

Only an alive person can move their lower body at least two feet forward from a sitting upright position. By using their functional and alive arms and lower body with considerable effort.