Why wasn't crispy shot?

[Kaldin]

Now you are making assumptions based on what someone didn't say.

Well if he's going to describe blood stains, he would describe them all, but he didn't say there was blood on her wrist, and yet he thinks blood on the nightdress was transferred from her wrist, so he must have thought that all the blood from her wrist got wiped off. Why then could blood on her fingers or palm not be wiped off?

In any case, what is the relevance of there being no blood on her fingers or palms?

[Adam]

Now then Adam, I've also contradicted statements made about Sheila being the perpetrator, so be fair.

It was you who insisted that the twins were shot first just because Julie claimed that Jeremy said so, but now you don't believe what Jeremy had allegedly said, so you're contradicting yourself.

I believe the twins were shot first. Either twice or 8 times. The bullet allocation evidence supports either option. Espescially 2 times first. Julie's WS also says Bamber told her the twins were shot first.

I believe Bamber told Julie MM told Sheila to shoot herself.


I believe Bamber was lying to Julie in the second point for reasons I have given. The evidence in several pages of the COA document show Sheila did not fire or handle any bullets.

I go by the COA evidence rather than what Bamber would tell Julie. Bamber is a pathalogical liar.

[guest2181]

Well if he's going to describe blood stains, he would describe them all, but he didn't say there was blood on her wrist, and yet he thinks blood on the nightdress was transferred from her wrist, so he must have thought that all the blood from her wrist got wiped off. Why then could blood on her fingers or palm not be wiped off?

He doesn't say all blood was wiped from her wrist. Indeed, the photographs available suggest otherwise.

In any case, what is the relevance of there being no blood on her fingers or palms?

I'm not entirely sure.

I think the argument is that Sheila was 'clean' therefore she couldn't be responsible for the murders. The counter argument is trying to show that she was not 'clean'.

Both arguments are a bit silly, to me at least.

[Kaldin]

He doesn't say all blood was wiped from her wrist. Indeed, the photographs available suggest otherwise.

I'm not entirely sure.

I think the argument is that Sheila was 'clean' therefore she couldn't be responsible for the murders. The counter argument is trying to show that she was not 'clean'.

Both arguments are a bit silly, to me at least.

Then why didn't he say there was blood on her wrist in his statement?

[Adam]

He doesn't say all blood was wiped from her wrist. Indeed, the photographs available suggest otherwise.

I'm not entirely sure.

I think the argument is that Sheila was 'clean' therefore she couldn't be responsible for the murders. The counter argument is trying to show that she was not 'clean'.

Both arguments are a bit silly, to me at least.

The COA have made a rock solid account showing Sheila was shot by someone else. Almost certainly within 2 minutes of getting out of bed.

How ? That is the condition the evidence states her & her nightdress was found in.

[guest2181]

Then why didn't he say there was blood on her wrist in his statement?

He doesn't go in to much detail of any of the blood stains in his statement.

He does refer to them in his court evidence.

I suspect he also relied on photographs.

[Caroline]

He doesn't say all blood was wiped from her wrist. Indeed, the photographs available suggest otherwise.

I'm not entirely sure.

I think the argument is that Sheila was 'clean' therefore she couldn't be responsible for the murders. The counter argument is trying to show that she was not 'clean'.

Both arguments are a bit silly, to me at least.

That isn't the significance of their being blood on her hands, it has implications for the hand swabs.

[guest2181]

That isn't the significance of their being blood on her hands, it has implications for the hand swabs.

Aah okay, so if there is blood on the palms then the hand swabs are planted/forged/false?

[Kaldin]

He doesn't go in to much detail of any of the blood stains in his statement.

He does refer to them in his court evidence.

I suspect he also relied on photographs.

I think I'll have to persist with his court statement. I've enlarged it so it's a bit easier to read. It might take some time though.

[guest2181]

I think I'll have to persist with his court statement. I've enlarged it so it's a bit easier to read. It might take some time though.

Good luck. 

[Kaldin]

That isn't the significance of their being blood on her hands, it has implications for the hand swabs.

I asked before, but I don't think anyone replied - were the hand swabs which were examined definitely the same ones which had been submitted once before and rejected?

[Kaldin]

Good luck. 

Cheers! 

[guest2181]

I asked before, but I don't think anyone replied - were the hand swabs which were examined definitely the same ones which had been submitted once before and rejected?

Barring some level of planting evidence, then yes, they were.

[Caroline]

I asked before, but I don't think anyone replied - were the hand swabs which were examined definitely the same ones which had been submitted once before and rejected?

Sorry, didn't see the question the first time. Were they the same swabs? I don't see why they wouldn't be, because to provide a second set, they would need access to her body and permission from the morgue but of course I can't say they were 100% the same ones.

[Caroline]

Aah okay, so if there is blood on the palms then the hand swabs are planted/forged/false?

If there was blood on her hand, then their should be traces f blood on the swabs - it's not that the swabs are false necessarily, but it does raise questions.