Sheila's neck wound and the blood on her arm

[guest2181]

And here is another example.

I know ya lying 

It's not an example, merely a complete failure of your sarcasm sensors. 

[maggie]

For the same reasons given, the blood stains on Sheilas hand (as described by the pathologist) are now unbelievably being presented as cuts or injuries.

This is another example of people trying to pull the wool over your eyes. A premeditated and concerted effort to manipulate.

I am soooo naive, maybe I should get a life coach.

[guest2181]

I am soooo naive, maybe I should get a life coach.

.Maggie, that was your third attempt at a reply over the last two hours.

I wasn't referring to you personally, simply that there is an effort to mislead people by Jeremy's supporters. At some point you have to ask why.

[Jane]

I am soooo naive, maybe I should get a life coach.

Well, THINK about it, Maggie. Vanezis did the autopsies within hours of the deaths. He went into minute detail about all sorts of inconsequential marks which were totally unrelated to the crime. WHY would he have omitted something linked to it. It was no skin off his nose WHO was responsible -pointing fingers wasn't in his remit- he wasn't concerned with family dynamics. Jeremy wasn't under investigation at the time and wasn't for another month. It seems that it's being suggested that the notes he wrote -and dated!!!- at the time he carried out the autopsies -in particular, Sheila's- he later changed!!!! WHY? The man had -STILL has- an unblemished record. I TRULY believe, despite what we're being asked to believe, if there had been gouges on Sheila when he autopsied her body,those gouges WOULD have been noted. This wouldn't be the first time we've been assured that black has been white.

[maggie]

.Maggie, that was your third attempt at a reply over the last two hours.

I wasn't referring to you personally, simply that there is an effort to mislead people by Jeremy's supporters. At some point you have to ask why.

They were not 'attempts' I am just so fed up with the preaching and the put downs however I am not interested in falling out with anyone or even discussing this subject anymore. 
We all have a right to our own opinions for our own reasons without being told we are naive or easily manipulated.  I am quite capable of questioning anyone's motives and on a forum we should all be aware that posters are not all they appear to be whatever their stance on any issue.

[maggie]

Well, THINK about it, Maggie. Vanezis did the autopsies within hours of the deaths. He went into minute detail about all sorts of inconsequential marks which were totally unrelated to the crime. WHY would he have omitted something linked to it. It was no skin off his nose WHO was responsible -pointing fingers wasn't in his remit- he wasn't concerned with family dynamics. Jeremy wasn't under investigation at the time and wasn't for another month. It seems that it's being suggested that the notes he wrote -and dated!!!- at the time he carried out the autopsies -in particular, Sheila's- he later changed!!!! WHY? The man had -STILL has- an unblemished record. I TRULY believe, despite what we're being asked to believe, if there had been gouges on Sheila when he autopsied her body,those gouges WOULD have been noted. This wouldn't be the first time we've been assured that black has been white.

I have THOUGHT about it which is why I say I cannot give any reason for the above.  I am not trying to rewrite anything because I don't have any information to do so.  I am quite hot on people giving their own opinions as fact therefore I wouldn't do it myself.

[Adam]

'A third crowdfunding appeal has now been launched called Forensics 360.

The target is £6,000 to pay for a review of all material evidence used at Bamber's trial.

A spokesman for the campaign said: "We are looking at the case in its entirety, a full 360 degrees, to explore new avenues.".

                                                 -----------

Hopefully 360 will give some feedback soon. As it's been several months since it's formation. All evidence is being looked at again so surely they can come up with something.

Mike & Bill's photographic evidence they cannot or will not post. While JackieD, Roch & David won't reveal their new evidence. Which makes forum discussion difficult.

[Roch]

Well, THINK about it, Maggie. Vanezis did the autopsies within hours of the deaths. He went into minute detail about all sorts of inconsequential marks which were totally unrelated to the crime. WHY would he have omitted something linked to it. It was no skin off his nose WHO was responsible -pointing fingers wasn't in his remit- he wasn't concerned with family dynamics. Jeremy wasn't under investigation at the time and wasn't for another month. It seems that it's being suggested that the notes he wrote -and dated!!!- at the time he carried out the autopsies -in particular, Sheila's- he later changed!!!! WHY? The man had -STILL has- an unblemished record. I TRULY believe, despite what we're being asked to believe, if there had been gouges on Sheila when he autopsied her body,those gouges WOULD have been noted. This wouldn't be the first time we've been assured that black has been white.

No he doesn't.  His expert testimony helped to wrongly convict a man who was imprisoned for 7 years as a result.

Also, Drake sent down the 'Bridgwater Four' in 1979.

[guest7363]

Well, THINK about it, Maggie. Vanezis did the autopsies within hours of the deaths. He went into minute detail about all sorts of inconsequential marks which were totally unrelated to the crime. WHY would he have omitted something linked to it. It was no skin off his nose WHO was responsible -pointing fingers wasn't in his remit- he wasn't concerned with family dynamics. Jeremy wasn't under investigation at the time and wasn't for another month. It seems that it's being suggested that the notes he wrote -and dated!!!- at the time he carried out the autopsies -in particular, Sheila's- he later changed!!!! WHY? The man had -STILL has- an unblemished record. I TRULY believe, despite what we're being asked to believe, if there had been gouges on Sheila when he autopsied her body,those gouges WOULD have been noted. This wouldn't be the first time we've been assured that black has been white.

The notes he wrote got stolen over the weekend Jane, says Mike?  Surprisingly i know, but this is always the bottom line answer when proof is given.

[Roch]

They were not 'attempts' I am just so fed up with the preaching and the put downs however I am not interested in falling out with anyone or even discussing this subject anymore. 
We all have a right to our own opinions for our own reasons without being told we are naive or easily manipulated.  I am quite capable of questioning anyone's motives and on a forum we should all be aware that posters are not all they appear to be whatever their stance on any issue.

Maggie, his posts are actually quite offensive.  They are also insulting to the memory of Daniel, Nicholas, June, Nevill and Sheila. 

What is being claimed is that I am attempting to mislead and pull wool over people's eyes regarding wounds upon the back of Sheila's right hand; an angled cut on the left side of her right index finger which matches the shape of an engineered rifle part; and wounds upon her right arm.

I personally feel you should be commended for being forthright and honest in your acknowledgement of the wounds on the open forum.

The wounds in question were passed off as 'smearing'.  I have repeatedly asked how a gunshot neck wound pouring with blood would cause such 'smearing'.  I think we both know that blood doesn't behave in a manner that would cause the marks in question.  It doesn't of itself break the skin either. 

[Jane]

The notes he wrote got stolen over the weekend Jane, says Mike?  Surprisingly i know, but this is always the bottom line answer when proof is given.

Well, wad'ya know? SURprise SURprise!!!

[guest7363]

Maggie, his posts are actually quite offensive.  They are also insulting to the memory of Daniel, Nicholas, June, Nevill and Sheila. 

What is being claimed is that I am attempting to mislead and pull wool over people's eyes regarding wounds upon the back of Sheila's right hand; an angled cut on the left side of her right index finger which matches the shape of an engineered rifle part; and wounds upon her right arm.

I personally feel you should be commended for being forthright and honest in your acknowledgement of the wounds on the open forum.

The wounds in question were passed off as 'smearing'.  I have repeatedly asked how a gunshot neck wound pouring with blood would cause such 'smearing'.  I think we both know that blood doesn't behave in a manner that would cause the marks in question.  It doesn't of itself break the skin either.

Oh come on Roch and your posts aren't  offensive about family, police and Vanezis?

Maggie, his posts are actually quite offensive.  They are also insulting to the memory of Daniel, Nicholas, June, Nevill and Sheila.   
Yes right, pull the other one

[Jane]

Maggie, his posts are actually quite offensive.  They are also insulting to the memory of Daniel, Nicholas, June, Nevill and Sheila. 

What is being claimed is that I am attempting to mislead and pull wool over people's eyes regarding wounds upon the back of Sheila's right hand; an angled cut on the left side of her right index finger which matches the shape of an engineered rifle part; and wounds upon her right arm.

I personally feel you should be commended for being forthright and honest in your acknowledgement of the wounds on the open forum.


The wounds in question were passed off as 'smearing'.  I have repeatedly asked how a gunshot neck wound pouring with blood would cause such 'smearing'.  I think we both know that blood doesn't behave in a manner that would cause the marks in question.  It doesn't of itself break the skin either.

Strange what it is you choose to see as giving offence, isn't it? What about the offence given to the family, to Sheila, to Julie Mugford -NONE of whom were on trial- by certain posters every time they draw breath. Funny how some are seen as being fair game.

[Roch]

Oh come on Roch and your posts aren't  offensive about family, police and Vanezis?

Maggie, his posts are actually quite offensive.  They are also insulting to the memory of Daniel, Nicholas, June, Nevill and Sheila.   
Yes right, pull the other one

You're entitled to your opinion but I don't know why you are so eager to defend the reputations of the 80's Essex Police officers and Vanezis?    I have consistently posted on this forum that any peddled version of events that conceals the truth, is effectively an insult to the victims. My reasoning for this is that the victims experienced the truth of the situation first hand.  The least we can do is to preserve that truth - not distort it by 'bending' the evidence to suit a JB conviction.  If you have to bend the evidence in order to get somebody behind bars - how is that preserving the truth of what happened?

[Jane]

No he doesn't.  His expert testimony helped to wrongly convict a man who was imprisoned for 7 years as a result.

Also, Drake sent down the 'Bridgwater Four' in 1979.

You appear to be saying that if a person makes ONE mistake, it's a given that another will follow and you use other cases as examples of errors. I tire of other cases being thrown into this arena. THIS is about Jeremy Bamber. It seems perfectly reasonable to me, that if an error had occurred in a previous case, the person responsible would take care to ascertain that another didn't occur.