0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Oh I always thought there was only a palm print on the nightdress. That looks like bloody fingerprints?
I always thought the argument was she would be so frightened of the gun no force would be needed?
I miss your posts
If someone has a tight grip on a person who tries to pull away, it's likely that a scrape could occur.
Those marks look for all the world like " grip " marks----as in the trigger part of the rifle being as she was right-handed.After all,she had been busy,hadn't she ?
It's just blood transfer from her wrist.
I might be back for a fleeting few visits. My belief has never changed . Unfortunately family circumstances forced me to take a few steps back for a while .
But look at her nails Lookout after all that activity. I just can't believe the thumbnail is not damaged in any way.
Yes, if they have nails to dig in to somebody - I think that's right. But that begs the question - if Jeremy caused her to have such gouges and scrapes in the manner suggested - and Jeremy was the one being prosecuted for killing her - why did the prosecution's case against him omit the scrapes?
I think I must need to go to spec savers then because it looks like the creases in the fingers and even a very faint imprint of the end of her nails ??
There have been posts on here before that actually said it is an easy rifle to fire and to be fair we can not see all her nails so we only have reports that say they were not damaged . It also says her hands were clean and there is no way that is true is it? Perhaps they were by the time the autopsy happened?