Sheila's neck wound and the blood on her arm

[Roch]

Ok thanks Steve.

This is Hammersley's court statement, for those who think they did not have photos of the hands at trial, they even had enlargements.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5817.0;attach=37846

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5817.0;attach=37847

But I suppose innocent posters have  a much clearer picture than what was offered at trial?

Can I please ask why you keep going on about photos at trial regarding Sheila's hand/s.  You yourself were allowed a close-up view of Sheila's right hand on this forum.  Your response was to launch in to attacks and rail against the person who allowed you to see the image.   Why do you prefer to hang off the back of Hammersley's word - instead of just using your own eyes to view the image in question?   

[David1819]

Ok thanks Steve.

This is Hammersley's court statement, for those who think they did not have photos of the hands at trial, they even had enlargements.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5817.0;attach=37846

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5817.0;attach=37847

But I suppose innocent posters have  a much clearer picture than what was offered at trial?

Indeed.

Having a long nail on one thumb with a much shorter nail on the other with the rear nail plate white on one finger and red on the other is not by most standards well manicured.

The claim that her nails were perfect come from same people that claim her feet were spotless yet the photos of her feet contradict this.

[Roch]

Here is another one who says it's blood staining.  Professor Herbert Leon McDonnell

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=264.0;attach=20300;image

It doesn't refer to the back of Sheila's right hand.

[Roch]

Obviously he lied also 

Wasn't there questions about whether he was actually at the scene?  I can't remember whether this was resolved.

[Lucy522]

Ok thanks Lucy, I didn't know if he paid his respects before burial?

No he didn't see Sheila or the boys at all, x

[Roch]

But, as yet, has given no credible explanation as to WHY a man of Vanezis' standing should want to lie.

A credible explanation was given here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8513.0.html

He probably didn't want to lie.  He also probably didn't want to impede the police from making sure a multiple murderer didn't get 'off the hook'. 

[susan]

Onto Bill's suggestion he has seen pictures of 28 scratches on Sheila. Which must be under her undamaged nightdress.

Once Bill posts the pictures of course.

Adam it was discussed on the forum that a blood stain was on the edge of the cereal bowl at the breakfast table and it seemed it was the blood from Sheila's right thumb at that time Lookout had already spotted the marks on Sheila's right hand she often posted in relation to this but she was scoffed at and she was right after all she spotted other things and it seems she was right again

[guest7363]

No he didn't see Sheila or the boys at all, x

Thanks Lucy, rather surprised at that, unless he was advised not to?  Having said that, whenever I've visited the Chapel of rest I've had it on my mind for weeks, it's not nice.

[Roch]

Thats another one who must have been in the industrial frame as well.

Was he at the scene?

[Steve_uk]

Indeed.

Having a long nail on one thumb with a much shorter nail on the other with the rear nail plate white on one finger and red on the other is not by most standards well manicured.

The claim that her nails were perfect come from same people that claim her feet were spotless yet the photos of her feet contradict this.

They are hardly hands which one could surmise have been in contact with another person either.

[Roch]

I wouldn't care to respond to anything you ask me.

Grievances notwithstanding, you can hardly pick and choose yourself, which aspect of the case is a 'conspiracy theory' within your own stance - if you are going to use that very term in a derogatory manner against 'supporters'.

[guest7363]

Can I please ask why you keep going on about photos at trial regarding Sheila's hand/s.  You yourself were allowed a close-up view of Sheila's right hand on this forum.  Your response was to launch in to attacks and rail against the person who allowed you to see the image.   Why do you prefer to hang off the back of Hammersley's word - instead of just using your own eyes to view the image in question?   

Because my eyes tell me it's blood smearing, this is what the forum is about discussing evidence and dismissing evidence, if there is a way forward with your new evidence so be it, but what I've seen there isn't, don't put your theories on here if you don't want them to be discussed.  Or do you want everyone to dismiss clear evidence, that without a shadow of doubt, backed up with numerous first hand account witnesses who clearly back my eyes against your eyes.

[Roch]

When I have asked you to explain things you have told me it's not up to you to do so. Given that I was not at the scene nor a fly on the wall, I couldn't possibly tell you how dried blood came to rest there. But please don't tell me what I would or would do in other circumstances - by saying that you are suggesting that I am lying. Sorry I can't see what you see but I'm not into conspiracy theories so don't see liars around every corner!

But according to you / Vanezis et al, any dried blood upon her, is supposed to be from her neck wounds -  transfered as 'runs' or 'smears'.   Are you of the opinion that these two small marks (that David inadvertantly pointed out) are the same?

[Roch]

Because my eyes tell me it's blood smearing, this is what the forum is about discussing evidence and dismissing evidence, if there is a way forward with your new evidence so be it, but what I've seen there isn't, don't put your theories on here if you don't want them to be discussed.  Or do you want everyone to dismiss clear evidence, that without a shadow of doubt, backed up with numerous first hand account witnesses who clearly back my eyes against your eyes.

Then as I have already asked - please tell me which kind of transferred smear begins or ends with a crescent-like incision?

[guest7363]

It doesn't refer to the back of Sheila's right hand.

No he refers to the staining or smears on the radius area of the arm between the elbow and wrist.  his eyes see same as me staining.  This being your first picture for discussion in your belief them being grazes/ cuts scratches etc.