DCI 621 Stuart Smith Specsavers Challenge

[lookout]

Hi lookout my opinion and that is all it is Sheila shot her family then she showered and I have always thought her hair looked newly washed changed into a nightie I suspect belonging to June then at some point after shot herself I really am not sure about her being down stairs but I did read on here just this week that two police officers said when they saw Sheila the blood looked like it had recently run out of her mouth.  Poor Sheila.

I know Susan,she was completely out of control that night as things had come to a head.Very sad,but she wouldn't have been beyond redemption in the right hands before five lives had been lost.
Her diaries would have told her full story as writing her feelings must have been her salvation at times to get things off her chest.

[susan]

I know Susan,she was completely out of control that night as things had come to a head.Very sad,but she wouldn't have been beyond redemption in the right hands before five lives had been lost.
Her diaries would have told her full story as writing her feelings must have been her salvation at times to get things off her chest.

Lookout wonder where her diary is? although maybe good nobody can read it as it would have been so private when my Mum was alive she always kept a daily account in her diary and she kept it so private and when she died I burnt them all as I had to respect her wishes and keep her thoughts private.

[JackieD]

It's very quiet

[Caroline]

Yes I agree they wouldn't misread the crime scene if it was staged.  If they came across a staged crime scene - in the manner that this one was - then I believe they would have cottoned on to it.  It's therefore paradoxical that they themselves ended up staging the crime scene in a not totally convincing manner.

Regarding release of crime photos etc.  I think we would need to know which photos were released when and what the quality of those photos were.

All of which is a complete contradiction.

[Caroline]

It is not as simple as that, it hardly ever is. The trial lawyers and the jury were shown photographs that were in effect 'whole body' i.e. no close-up details. It is apparent from the numerous questions asked by the Judge, Prosecution and Defence lawyers, that they struggled to see any detail of the wounds. In my view, that is what Ainsley intended, so that Vanezis' testimony would be accepted without question.

The photographs were then never intended to be seen again, except by a very small number of people who were concerned with Jeremy's appeals. The general public were never meant to see any crime scene photos. Then, out of the blue, along came the internet and websites like the JB Forum where crime scene photos have been posted. With the right software and a lot of time and experimentation it has been possible to produce enlarged images that the police would never have dreamed were possible in 1985. So, the police were not dumb, they just didn't anticipate the development of the internet, or digital image processing.

What? The police didn't anticipate photographic technology to improve so they carelessly allowed photographs that contradicted what they said (which they don't) into the public domain? O - K 

Just for the record, how do you know what the jury saw? Something to back that claim up might be useful or (again) it's just empty claims that require bland faith. You'll find a lot of that here, but not from me.

[lookout]

Lookout wonder where her diary is? although maybe good nobody can read it as it would have been so private when my Mum was alive she always kept a daily account in her diary and she kept it so private and when she died I burnt them all as I had to respect her wishes and keep her thoughts private.

There were a number of diaries Susan,as there would have been if Sheila had kept tabs on various appointments/venues during her modelling. I believe the relatives have/had them. Serve them right if there was anything they shouldn't have seen ! There again,Sheila could also have made a record of her " problems " -----which they'd have ignored,as I noted in all their statements,they never once asked any questions about anything pertaining to anyone including Jeremy as they'd seemed to " know everything about everyone " , even though they never saw the family regularly.

[guest2181]

The images in the pdf have just been manipulated, there appears to be a white dot on one area of blood staining that people are thinking is skin gouged up, but it is just where the image has been lightened and become pixilated.

Seeing the image below and wider angle images in the photo library we can see that it is simply a continuation of blood staining rather than wounds.

Nice try guys. 

[Caroline]

They did find the diary, that's how they knew she wrote "I shouldn't have been horrible to Jeremy". The others (if they exist) must in an Indiana Jones type dungeon, fashioned by EP along with the boxes of missing documents - careful how you tread  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db5rRtOExbA

[Roch]

What? The police didn't anticipate photographic technology to improve so they carelessly allowed photographs that contradicted what they said (which they don't) into the public domain? O - K 

Just for the record, how do you know what the jury saw? Something to back that claim up might be useful or (again) it's just empty claims that require bland faith. You'll find a lot of that here, but not from me.

Jeremy has been incarcerated since 1985.  The photos came only came in to the public domain in 2003 / 2004 - when Mike Tesko took photos of photos . Wasn't this something to do with either Ewen Smith or GDS?   Negatives were released to the defence I think in 2011 via the CCRC. 

Many moons ago in the early days of the forum - Mike Tesko said the same thing about the photos used at trial.  Which was a deliberate strategy. 

[lookout]

They are " digs " into the flesh because you can see where they've smudged.

[Jane]

There were a number of diaries Susan,as there would have been if Sheila had kept tabs on various appointments/venues during her modelling. I believe the relatives have/had them. Serve them right if there was anything they shouldn't have seen ! There again,Sheila could also have made a record of her " problems " -----which they'd have ignored,as I noted in all their statements,they never once asked any questions about anything pertaining to anyone including Jeremy as they'd seemed to " know everything about everyone " , even though they never saw the family regularly.

If Sheila had been as ditsy about keeping a diary as she was about other disciplines, they'd have been pretty empty. Also, it had been YEARS since she'd had modelling assignments.

[Adam]

The images in the pdf have just been manipulated, there appears to be a white dot on one area of blood staining that people are thinking is skin gouged up, but it is just where the image has been lightened and become pixilated.

Seeing the image below and wider angle images in the photo library we can see that it is simply a continuation of blood staining rather than wounds.

Nice try guys. 

Her nail looks well manicured.

[Caroline]

Jeremy has been incarcerated since 1985.  The photos came only came in to the public domain in 2003 / 2004 - when Mike Tesko took photos of photos . Wasn't this something to do with either Ewen Smith or GDS?   Negatives were released to the defence I think in 2011 via the CCRC. 

Many moons ago in the early days of the forum - Mike Tesko said the same thing about the photos used at trial.  Which was a deliberate strategy.

Whenever they were released, doesn't really matter, if they showed what is being claimed here, they'd never have seen the light of day but there is no evidence to prove that they were kept from either the defence of the jury.

[Roch]

The images in the pdf have just been manipulated, there appears to be a white dot on one area of blood staining that people are thinking is skin gouged up, but it is just where the image has been lightened and become pixilated.

Seeing the image below and wider angle images in the photo library we can see that it is simply a continuation of blood staining rather than wounds.

Nice try guys. 

Is this the 'non manipulated' photo? 

Even if it is - I'm sorry - but what I see are a full crescent gouge with a stain underneath it and a partial crescent gouge with a stain underneath it.  In the images put up by Bill - it is possible to see that the partical cresecent gouge is actually separated.  The stains underneath are still quite possibly grazes even in this image.

There is also still a distinctive 'nick' on the inside of Sheila's forefinger - above where the side of the hand eventually meets the thumb.

 

[guest2181]

Her nail looks well manicured.

It does.

This is actually the very same image, taken from this forum (originally a still frame from a documentary) that Bill has used in his pdf.

I've just run this same image through a few different filters in Photoshop and got the same results.