Sheila's neck wound and the blood on her arm

[Jane]

It occurs to me that those posters who believe in Jeremy being innocent might be wise to find a bit more common ground. We have Mike telling the story of police shooting Sheila, not just once, but twice, and if lack of support for it, from other supporters, is anything to go by, is at a thousand mile remove from anything other supporters believe. We have Lookout with any entirely different take, in that it was a family feud with June being responsible for Sheila's death. We've had David tealeafing information researched by someone else, making it pro Bamber and saying he has new and crucial information too hot to share -might that be the reason for it being dropped like a lead balloon? We have Roch trying to convince us that respected and eminent experts presents entirely different ie rewritten notes on Sheila after Jeremy started to be investigated................and we have a cheer leader egging them all on to success. The ONLY thing they have in common THUS far is their belief in Jeremy's innocence. NOTHING else of their beliefs seem to match up with anyone else's belief. It lends neither credibility to, nor confidence in, anything they say.

[Caroline]

I didn't become rattled with what you posted.  I just couldn't understand why didn't want to use your own eyes when given the opportunity.

Did the defence not have eyes when looking at enlarged photographs of the back of Sheila's right hand?

[guest7363]

I didn't become rattled with what you posted.  I just couldn't understand why didn't want to use your own eyes when given the opportunity.

You accused me of attacking

Quote from: justice on July 23, 2017, 06:53:PM
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?   
« Last Edit: July 23, 2017, 09:08:PM by Roch »

[Roch]

You accused me of attacking

Yes, as in the two people who put the images up.  I couldn't understand why you weren't grateful instead of moaning.

[mike tesko]

DC Hammersley has got a lot of explaining to do, because exhibit DRH/33 was also the bible!!

The bible later became DRH/44..

In fact, there were two bibles, one DRH/33 and the other DRH/44 - one was discarded so that the hand swab could be introduced after it had previously been rejected!!

[mike tesko]

In fact, there were two bibles, one DRH/33 and the other DRH/44 - one was discarded so that the hand swab could be introduced after it had previously been rejected!!

In fact, the whole exhibit library is made up of doctered exhibit references, because if the truth be known DC Hammersley was not the first police officer to seize them, handle them, or remove them from the bodies of victims, or elsewhere inside the farmhouse, the firearm officers were, then senior officers, then the first group of SOCO (Henderson and Oakey), then the second team of SOCO (Bird, Cook, Davidson and Hammersley)...

Exhibit references for exhibits faked...

[mike tesko]

In fact, the whole exhibit library is made up of doctered exhibit references, because if the truth be known DC Hammersley was not the first police officer to seize them, handle them, or remove them from the bodies of victims, or elsewhere inside the farmhouse, the firearm officers were, then senior officers, then the first group of SOCO (Henderson and Oakey), then the second team of SOCO (Bird, Cook, Davidson and Hammersley)...

Exhibit references for exhibits faked...

But I guess nobody gives a hoot about this state of affairs, it seems the done deal to fabricate evidence and stsage the death scenes of victims in this case!

[Jane]

I suspect it is quite obvious that the prime suspect here, would be the character currently serving time in prison for fraud.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Di_Stefano_(fraudster)

Heheheee! Whilst I feel certain you're undeserving of it H, it may have escaped your notice that the number of your above post is 666 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[guest2181]

Heheheee! Whilst I feel certain you're undeserving of it H, it may have escaped your notice that the number of your above post is 666 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's quite funny. 

[Jane]

That's quite funny. 

I thought so   

[Steve_uk]

It occurs to me that those posters who believe in Jeremy being innocent might be wise to find a bit more common ground. We have Mike telling the story of police shooting Sheila, not just once, but twice, and if lack of support for it, from other supporters, is anything to go by, is at a thousand mile remove from anything other supporters believe. We have Lookout with any entirely different take, in that it was a family feud with June being responsible for Sheila's death. We've had David tealeafing information researched by someone else, making it pro Bamber and saying he has new and crucial information too hot to share -might that be the reason for it being dropped like a lead balloon? We have Roch trying to convince us that respected and eminent experts presents entirely different ie rewritten notes on Sheila after Jeremy started to be investigated................and we have a cheer leader egging them all on to success. The ONLY thing they have in common THUS far is their belief in Jeremy's innocence. NOTHING else of their beliefs seem to match up with anyone else's belief. It lends neither credibility to, nor confidence in, anything they say.

I agree Jane, though I would put as a rider that I believe them sincere in their beliefs. I wanted Lookout's view on anti-depressants today and hope she's enjoying her holiday or time off if she's not with us. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/aurora_shooting

[Roch]

It occurs to me that those posters who believe in Jeremy being innocent might be wise to find a bit more common ground. We have Mike telling the story of police shooting Sheila, not just once, but twice, and if lack of support for it, from other supporters, is anything to go by, is at a thousand mile remove from anything other supporters believe. We have Lookout with any entirely different take, in that it was a family feud with June being responsible for Sheila's death. We've had David tealeafing information researched by someone else, making it pro Bamber and saying he has new and crucial information too hot to share -might that be the reason for it being dropped like a lead balloon? We have Roch trying to convince us that respected and eminent experts presents entirely different ie rewritten notes on Sheila after Jeremy started to be investigated................and we have a cheer leader egging them all on to success. The ONLY thing they have in common THUS far is their belief in Jeremy's innocence. NOTHING else of their beliefs seem to match up with anyone else's belief. It lends neither credibility to, nor confidence in, anything they say.

Who has the role of Cheerleader? 

BTW, I'm not trying to convince you that Vanezis' handwritten notes were re-written.  I touted it as a possibility.   It's not my fault that SC is covered in wounds.  It's the result of either one or both other adult victims attacking her arm, and trying to restrain her, prior to losing their own lives.  They too also sustained fight injuries in return. 

Their daughter literally went berserk.

[David1819]

Roch is this what you wanted me to highlight? 

[Jane]

I agree Jane, though I would put as a rider that I believe them sincere in their beliefs. I wanted Lookout's view on anti-depressants today and hope she's enjoying her holiday or time off if she's not with us. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/aurora_shooting

Yes Steve! I confess to doing a wry grin when I heard it on the news, albeit, that news is YEARS out of date. Back in the early 90's I was asked to do a presentation on eating disorders and my research told me that children as young as 5 to 7 were presenting with eating disorders -OK, so what did they expect? Children copy their parents- it was announced, on the news, just a few months ago, that scientists have found evidence that children as young as 5 are presenting with eating disorders!!! Of course, it doesn't mean ALL 5 year olds are afflicted, any more than antidepressants cause violence in EVERYONE. Like you, I hope Lookout, whatever she's doing, is benefiting from her time away from here and I wish her well.

[Roch]

Roch is this what you wanted me to highlight? 

Yes but I don't think it's the same version of the photo you used for your own post.  There's something different about it.  Annoyingly, my works computer wont allow me access to view your original post.  It sometimes does that - don't know why.