Sheila's neck wound and the blood on her arm

[Caroline]

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?

The point about this is Justice (and it's the innocent supporters who are playing sneaky smart here), the notes were written LONG BEFORE Bamber was a suspect and EP/the relatives had time to organise ANY conspiracy and they make no mention of these cuts. The defence have had the negatives for 6 years and this is the first time a claim like this has been made. Were these pictures so compelling why would they sit on them for six years?

I agree with Harry, if these pictures show what is being claimed with 100% clarity and certainty, why sit on them or ask for them to be removed when they are scrutinised?

[guest7363]

The point about this is Justice (and it's the innocent supporters who are playing sneaky smart here), the notes were written LONG BEFORE Bamber was a suspect and EP/the relatives had time to organise ANY conspiracy and they make no mention of these cuts. The defence have had the negatives for 6 years and this is the first time a claim like this has been made. Were these pictures so compelling why would they sit on them for six years?

I agree with Harry, if these pictures show what is being claimed with 100% clarity and certainty, why sit on them or ask for them to be removed when they are scrutinised?

I find it strange how supporters can look at pictures posted on here and say without a shadow of doubt there are cuts/grazes etc on Sheila's arms/hands, yet can't read or don't want to read evidence that disputes these facts.

[maggie]

I find it strange how supporters can look at pictures posted on here and say without a shadow of doubt there are cuts/grazes etc on Sheila's arms/hands, yet can't read or don't want to read evidence that disputes these facts.

I find it strange that anyone who questions and has a different take on some things is labelled a 'supporter' which seems to be another word for 'stupid' or the enemy. It's crazy,  surely we all have a common cause and are looking for the truth in this case.
I completely take on board and respect  what Vanizis said, I honestly cannot explain the conflicting evidence between what was used in court and the marks on Sheila's arms and also June's body. Am I supposed to dismiss the marks on Sheila's hands and arms to remain a guilter or to tell the truth as I see it ie. I have no idea  who did what or how this happened but it appears that it did.

[guest7363]

I find it strange that anyone who questions and has a different take on some things is labelled a 'supporter' which seems to be another word for 'stupid' or the enemy. It's crazy,  surely we all have a common cause and are looking for the truth in this case.
I completely take on board and respect  what Vanizis said, I honestly cannot explain the conflicting evidence between what was used in court and the marks on Sheila's arms and also June's body. Am I supposed to dismiss the marks on Sheila's hands and arms to remain a guilter or to tell the truth as I see it ie. I have no idea  who did what or how this happened but it appears that it did.

The wording supporters/guilters has been used on here for the last six years and it wasn't brought about by me, I don't normally use the wording but it seems to be the norm.  I've never seen you take offence to it before and it wasn't directed to you personally and I'm not really bothered what side of the fence your on, I just find it strange how people can go by a grainy picture and say there are cuts/grazes and a man gets labelled corrupt when all the evidence and experts says there wasn't any.

[Adam]

I find it strange that anyone who questions and has a different take on some things is labelled a 'supporter' which seems to be another word for 'stupid' or the enemy. It's crazy,  surely we all have a common cause and are looking for the truth in this case.
I completely take on board and respect  what Vanizis said, I honestly cannot explain the conflicting evidence between what was used in court and the marks on Sheila's arms and also June's body. Am I supposed to dismiss the marks on Sheila's hands and arms to remain a guilter or to tell the truth as I see it ie. I have no idea  who did what or how this happened but it appears that it did.

There are no marks on Sheila's body. The released pictures since 1985 & the 400+ released photos in 2011 show this. Otherwise the OS would be all over the media. Forty photos are on here which are decent quality, again showing no marks.

The experts & police also said there were no marks. But appreciate this is all part of the industrial frame.

Hopefully Mike provides his source that there are 180 unreleased photos. Otherwise the BBC news source that all photos have been released will have to be accepted.

Did Roch supply a source to you that June had marks on her body. Or did he just tell you ? The COA does not mention any marks on June.

[susan]

The wording supporters/guilters has been used on here for the last six years and it wasn't brought about by me, I don't normally use the wording but it seems to be the norm.  I've never seen you take offence to it before and it wasn't directed to you personally and I'm not really bothered what side of the fence your on, I just find it strange how people can go by a grainy picture and say there are cuts/grazes and a man gets labelled corrupt when all the evidence and experts says there wasn't any.

Hi Justice I can understand where you are coming from with the grainy pictures as they are grainy on my laptop too but Maggie sees them very clearly and NGB posted he could see them and he is not sitting on any fence he is impartial so in view of that I believe they exist. When I posted about the two reports I was not implying the man is corrupt I could never make a statement like that as I have not read either of them but obviously I do accept the statements were different which did not seem right to me.  I know you have not implied I said the guy was corrupt I just wanted to clarify my position and I am sure you will understand that.

[maggie]

The wording supporters/guilters has been used on here for the last six years and it wasn't brought about by me, I don't normally use the wording but it seems to be the norm.  I've never seen you take offence to it before and it wasn't directed to you personally and I'm not really bothered what side of the fence your on, I just find it strange how people can go by a grainy picture and say there are cuts/grazes and a man gets labelled corrupt when all the evidence and experts says there wasn't any.

I haven't takemailed offence Justice.

[David1819]

There are no marks on Sheila's body. The released pictures since 1985 & the 400+ released photos in 2011 show this.

What do you call this?

Don't tell me its not a mark just like a photo of Sheila's dirty feet show "perfectly clean" feet. The denialism from you is almost too extreme to be true.

[Adam]

What do you call this?

Don't tell me its not a mark just like a photo of Sheila's dirty feet show "perfectly clean" feet. The denialism from you is almost too extreme to be true.

It's a smudge. Otherwise the OS would have said it was scratch & claim Sheila fought Nevill. They have had 32 years to say this.

Nice colour enhancement anyway.

[Adam]

45: After the second injury she would have immediately fallen back. There was no evidence of any other mark or injury to Sheila Caffell's body such as might be suffered during a fight or in a scuffle.

47. The firearms officers who were the first to see her body noted that her feet and hands were "perfectly clean". Her fingernails were well manicured and not broken and there were no marks or indentations on any of her fingers. All her fingertips were clean and free from any blood, dirt or powder and there appeared to be no trace of any lead dust or coating which is usual when handling .22 ammunition.

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

Not sure why I am accussed of being in denial because there is a photo of a foot with a bit of red on. Supporters are refusing to accept respected experts & the police.

[mike tesko]

The point about this is Justice (and it's the innocent supporters who are playing sneaky smart here), the notes were written LONG BEFORE Bamber was a suspect and EP/the relatives had time to organise ANY conspiracy and they make no mention of these cuts. The defence have had the negatives for 6 years and this is the first time a claim like this has been made. Were these pictures so compelling why would they sit on them for six years?

I agree with Harry, if these pictures show what is being claimed with 100% clarity and certainty, why sit on them or ask for them to be removed when they are scrutinised?

The defence have npt had all of the photographic negatives, 180 are still unaccounted for!!

[Caroline]

I find it strange that anyone who questions and has a different take on some things is labelled a 'supporter' which seems to be another word for 'stupid' or the enemy. It's crazy,  surely we all have a common cause and are looking for the truth in this case.
I completely take on board and respect  what Vanizis said, I honestly cannot explain the conflicting evidence between what was used in court and the marks on Sheila's arms and also June's body. Am I supposed to dismiss the marks on Sheila's hands and arms to remain a guilter or to tell the truth as I see it ie. I have no idea  who did what or how this happened but it appears that it did.

I think this is true on bother sides - I hate the word 'guilter' - I think it's childish and I agree that just because we have a different point of view, it shouldn't lead to hostility.

I don't have to fall out with you or anyone else simply because I don't believe they are cuts and you do.

[Caroline]

The wording supporters/guilters has been used on here for the last six years and it wasn't brought about by me, I don't normally use the wording but it seems to be the norm.  I've never seen you take offence to it before and it wasn't directed to you personally and I'm not really bothered what side of the fence your on, I just find it strange how people can go by a grainy picture and say there are cuts/grazes and a man gets labelled corrupt when all the evidence and experts says there wasn't any.

I have to agree with this Justice. There was no earthly reason for him to lie.

[Jan]

45: After the second injury she would have immediately fallen back. There was no evidence of any other mark or injury to Sheila Caffell's body such as might be suffered during a fight or in a scuffle.

47. The firearms officers who were the first to see her body noted that her feet and hands were "perfectly clean". Her fingernails were well manicured and not broken and there were no marks or indentations on any of her fingers. All her fingertips were clean and free from any blood, dirt or powder and there appeared to be no trace of any lead dust or coating which is usual when handling .22 ammunition.

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

Not sure why I am accussed of being in denial because there is a photo of a foot with a bit of red on. Supporters are refusing to accept respected experts & the police.

You have seen photos to prove that her hands and feet were NOT  perfectly clean . So what is your point ?

[Caroline]

The defence have npt had all of the photographic negatives, 180 are still unaccounted for!!

Well they can't be the ones being bandied about on here then can they? And that's what we're talking about.