Sheila's neck wound and the blood on her arm

[guest7363]

Where is the half an hour time span mentioned?

His trial testimony is here to read Steve, I will let you judge how long he thinks, he's very vague on the half hour because, as I said Vanezis did the autopsy and the jugular was cut causing a lot of blood loss this would result in death in seconds or minutes.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=7008.0

[maggie]

His trial testimony is here to read Steve, I will let you judge how long he thinks, he's very vague on the half hour because, as I said Vanezis did the autopsy and the jugular was cut causing a lot of blood loss this would result in death in seconds or minutes.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=7008.0

Does it state anywhere that Sheila would have died that quickly after the first shot? I can't read the link you put up.  The external jugular vein was shaved which would cause bleeding and it is an important vein but it is not an artery. Blood would not have shot or poured out as blood from an artery but would have bled out over a longer time. Veins don't pump blood as arteries do but rather the blood flows back towards the heart.

[Steve_uk]

Does it state anywhere that Sheila would have died that quickly after the first shot? I can't read the link you put up.  The external jugular vein was shaved which would cause bleeding and it is an important vein but it is not an artery. Blood would not have shot or poured out as blood from an artery but would have bled out over a longer time. Veins don't pump blood as arteries do but rather the blood flows back towards the heart.

Mr Justice Drake: An hour..half an hour..?

Knight: The limit is whether in fact,  when the first wound would have caused death. Now that could be a long time, because this, although there was perhaps-if the external jugular was cut, then possibly you could limit that to a few minutes rather than half an hour, but the answer is I do not know because I do not know the extent of the bleeding from that wound.

Drake: But it could be from all you know half an hour or more, the interval?

Knight: I think that is excessive in view of the fact that Dr. Vanezis told us the external jugular was damaged by that lower wound, but I certainly put a number of minutes on it, many minutes, but I can't be more exact than that.

Drake: I am only asking you (as indeed Mr. Rivlin is) to give us the limits as nearly as you can.

Knight: A few seconds to a few minutes.

Drake: A few seconds to a few minutes?

Knight: Yes.

Drake: And you have really replied to us that you think half an hour would be too much?


Knight: Too much.

[maggie]

Mr Justice Drake: An hour..half an hour..?

Knight: The limit is whether in fact,  when the first wound would have caused death. Now that could be a long time, because this, although there was perhaps-if the external jugular was cut, then possibly you could limit that to a few minutes rather than half an hour, but the answer is I do not know because I do not know the extent of the bleeding from that wound.

Drake: But it could be from all you know half an hour or more, the interval?

Knight: I think that is excessive in view of the fact that Dr. Vanezis told us the external jugular was damaged by that lower wound, but I certainly put a number of minutes on it, many minutes, but I can't be more exact than that.

Drake: I am only asking you (as indeed Mr. Rivlin is) to give us the limits as nearly as you can.

Knight: A few seconds to a few minutes.

Drake: A few seconds to a few minutes?

Knight: Yes.

Drake: And you have really replied to us that you think half an hour would be too much?


Knight: Too much.

Thank you for that Steve.
It sounds like an educated guess by Knight to me.  Think the answer was they didn't know.  It would depend on the severity of the damage to the jugular vein for a start.  I don't believe she could have moved much after such a trauma to her throat/neck. 

[David1819]

Thank you for that Steve.
It sounds like an educated guess by Knight to me.  Think the answer was they didn't know.  It would depend on the severity of the damage to the jugular vein for a start.  I don't believe she could have moved much after such a trauma to her throat/neck.

Knights testimony is obsolete in this respect.

Shelia would have had five to ten seconds before she would pass out from blood loss. This is from a contemporary study on multiple gunshot suicides.

[Harry]

One might believe 2011 is a tad too late for EP/CCRC to provide negatives for lab blow-up?

If Bamber's defence have the negatives they should be able produce high resolution images showing that the skin is broken, leaving no room for any doubt. If they have had them since 2011 one would think that the matter would have been settled four years ago. A year to figure out the obvious and and a year to let people know about it.

The same applies where the wet blood argument is concerned. If there are now scores of "enhanced" wet blood photos, you might think they might ask another pathologist to confirm or deny that the blood is wet.

I have always suspected that the pathologists in this case were only allowed to see poor quality images. Well, now is the chance to show them pictures which will enable them to draw conclusions.

Guilters are sneaky smart. Notice how they have been trying to kid people that the jury and the pathologists actually saw high resolution pictures. It's not true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gTpj3YmRDg
Here is a professor who can tell you with categorical certainty that a skull fracture occurred after death and not before, even though the person died over two thousand years ago.

What Bamber needs is a guy to come on television and show everybody the proof that that he is innocent. It will start a public debate which may lead to an acquittal, when it becomes clear that there is nowhere for the liars to hide.

My point is that high resolution photographs will enable experts to arrive at conclusions, but only if they are allowed to see them.

[guest7363]

If Bamber's defence have the negatives they should be able produce high resolution images showing that the skin is broken, leaving no room for any doubt. If they have had them since 2011 one would think that the matter would have been settled four years ago. A year to figure out the obvious and and a year to let people know about it.

The same applies where the wet blood argument is concerned. If there are now scores of "enhanced" wet blood photos, you might think they might ask another pathologist to confirm or deny that the blood is wet.

I have always suspected that the pathologists in this case were only allowed to see poor quality images. Well, now is the chance to show them pictures which will enable them to draw conclusions.

Guilters are sneaky smart. Notice how they have been trying to kid people that the jury and the pathologists actually saw high resolution pictures. It's not true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gTpj3YmRDg
Here is a professor who can tell you with categorical certainty that a skull fracture occurred after death and not before, even though the person died over two thousand years ago.

What Bamber needs is a guy to come on television and show everybody the proof that that he is innocent. It will start a public debate which may lead to an acquittal, when it becomes clear that there is nowhere for the liars to hide.

My point is that high resolution photographs will enable experts to arrive at conclusions, but only if they are allowed to see them.

I don't think the guilters are trying to be sneaky smart, what's up with taking the word of a pathologist who, performed the autopsy, washed the body down while doing the autopsy, examined the bodies for any further injuries, said that there was no further injuries to Sheila in court. Why would he lie?

[guest7363]

Does it state anywhere that Sheila would have died that quickly after the first shot? I can't read the link you put up.  The external jugular vein was shaved which would cause bleeding and it is an important vein but it is not an artery. Blood would not have shot or poured out as blood from an artery but would have bled out over a longer time. Veins don't pump blood as arteries do but rather the blood flows back towards the heart.

Both agreed it was in an area that bled freely, although both agreed there was a lot of blood, they would have expected more blood IF there was a longer delay between shots?  Knight is all over the place with times, because in hindsight he hasn't the benefit like Vanezis of actually working with the bodies only Coloured photo's  and he admits this and concedes it would be seconds/minutes Shiela would be capable of moving.  I don't understand your wording of the vein being Shaved?  Would shaving cause that amount of blood loss? I can't pick up where they said it was Shaved, only damaged. 

[guest7363]

Knights testimony is obsolete in this respect.

Shelia would have had five to ten seconds before she would pass out from blood loss. This is from a contemporary study on multiple gunshot suicides.

It sort of scuppers Mikes belief that Sheila was shot once down stairs on entry and much later after 9.15 am while layed on the bed.

[maggie]

Knights testimony is obsolete in this respect.

Shelia would have had five to ten seconds before she would pass out from blood loss. This is from a contemporary study on multiple gunshot suicides.

Definitely if she was sitting she would have very quickly lost consciousness i.e.. seconds if at all , if lying flat and still, maybe a few mins?  :-[o Highly unlikely if conscious she would lie still, survival instinct would be to try to move imo.

[Adam]

If Bamber's defence have the negatives they should be able produce high resolution images showing that the skin is broken, leaving no room for any doubt. If they have had them since 2011 one would think that the matter would have been settled four years ago. A year to figure out the obvious and and a year to let people know about it.

The same applies where the wet blood argument is concerned. If there are now scores of "enhanced" wet blood photos, you might think they might ask another pathologist to confirm or deny that the blood is wet.

I have always suspected that the pathologists in this case were only allowed to see poor quality images. Well, now is the chance to show them pictures which will enable them to draw conclusions.

Guilters are sneaky smart. Notice how they have been trying to kid people that the jury and the pathologists actually saw high resolution pictures. It's not true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gTpj3YmRDg
Here is a professor who can tell you with categorical certainty that a skull fracture occurred after death and not before, even though the person died over two thousand years ago.

What Bamber needs is a guy to come on television and show everybody the proof that that he is innocent. It will start a public debate which may lead to an acquittal, when it becomes clear that there is nowhere for the liars to hide.

My point is that high resolution photographs will enable experts to arrive at conclusions, but only if they are allowed to see them.

Obviously the 400+ negatives the police gave to Bamber in 2011 did not benefit him. The police said this was all the negatives. Mike says the police are lying & there are 180 photo's the police have not released. Hopefully Mike will provide the source for this soon.

The pathologist didn't need to see any photos. They examined the body.

Guilters have not said what the jury were shown or not shown. No one knows. I assume the defence had access to the photos as well.

People such as AH & Eric Allison have gone on TV & said Bamber is innocent. Without success.

[maggie]

Both agreed it was in an area that bled freely, although both agreed there was a lot of blood, they would have expected more blood IF there was a longer delay between shots?  Knight is all over the place with times, because in hindsight he hasn't the benefit like Vanezis of actually working with the bodies only Coloured photo's  and he admits this and concedes it would be seconds/minutes Shiela would be capable of moving.  I don't understand your wording of the vein being Shaved?  Would shaving cause that amount of blood loss? I can't pick up where they said it was Shaved, only damaged.

I saw the word 'shaved' used in a descriptuon on here describing Sheila's injury year's ago and it stuck in my head but I have always assumed it was just another word for cut or ruptured...... same result.
No argument it meant anything other than ruptured etc.

[susan]

I'm suggesting that maybe it was Jeremy running downstairs with Neville in pursuit, rather than the other way around.

I don't know if Neville would flee leaving June in danger, so maybe he didn't.

Hartley thanks for that I did wonder after I had posted you were suggesting an alternative.

[Caroline]

If Bamber's defence have the negatives they should be able produce high resolution images showing that the skin is broken, leaving no room for any doubt. If they have had them since 2011 one would think that the matter would have been settled four years ago. A year to figure out the obvious and and a year to let people know about it.

The same applies where the wet blood argument is concerned. If there are now scores of "enhanced" wet blood photos, you might think they might ask another pathologist to confirm or deny that the blood is wet.

I have always suspected that the pathologists in this case were only allowed to see poor quality images. Well, now is the chance to show them pictures which will enable them to draw conclusions.

Guilters are sneaky smart. Notice how they have been trying to kid people that the jury and the pathologists actually saw high resolution pictures. It's not true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gTpj3YmRDg
Here is a professor who can tell you with categorical certainty that a skull fracture occurred after death and not before, even though the person died over two thousand years ago.

What Bamber needs is a guy to come on television and show everybody the proof that that he is innocent. It will start a public debate which may lead to an acquittal, when it becomes clear that there is nowhere for the liars to hide.

My point is that high resolution photographs will enable experts to arrive at conclusions, but only if they are allowed to see them.

Excellent post Harry. I totally agree (except with the sneaky smart line!), sitting on such evidence and posting the odd snippet for titillation isn't going to help Bamber, if they have such evidence that shows these cuts with 100% certainty, it needs to be in the public domain.

[Adam]

http://www.petervanezis.com/

Vanezis has an unblemised record.