Bullets fired and reloading

[Kaldin]

The second.

So who shot her the first time?

[JackieD]

If she has scratchmarks... then she has wounds upon her hands.  You cannot have it both ways.   I'll bet serious money with any member on here - that Sheila's skin was broken at several places along the length of her arm.  The offer is there and has been for many months.

What possible reason would you have to lie

[JackieD]

I do find it interesting that the statement of Dr Vanezis was not made until 30th September - seven weeks after the post mortem. His handwritten notes are difficult to read and I can't see a date on them, so I don't know when they were made. These handwritten notes do contain a part which says that Sheila killed the others and then herself, but the typed statement does not. I can't find a typed version of his handwritten notes.

As his handwritten notes do not mention injuries on Sheila other than the gunshot wounds, do you really think that he deliberately left out such injuries? Why would he do that at the time, or even later?

What possible reason was there for such a delay in Dr Vanezis statement

[maggie]

Scratches on her hand do not prove a fight took place, there are numerous possible causes such as accidental or even self inflicted.

What is the point of making a bet that can never be settled? The only way you can win is if Vanezis comes forward and admits to the foul play you allege. That's not going to happen.

I am curious why you won't even contemplate that Roch MAY be right about Sheila's defence wounds?  As you are certain JB was not the killer why do you dismiss the fact that Sheila may have fought over the rifle with the other victims?
I am genuinely interested not trying to score points.

[Kaldin]

What possible reason was there for such a delay in Dr Vanezis statement

I really don't know, and I don't know if it was just copied from the typed post mortem report either.

[guest7363]

I am curious why you won't even contemplate that Roch MAY be right about Sheila's defence wounds?  As you are certain JB was not the killer why do you dismiss the fact that Sheila may have fought over the rifle with the other victims?
I am genuinely interested not trying to score points.

Why should he, if they aren’t there it’s no use saying they are just for Roch.

[maggie]

Why should he, if they aren’t there it’s no use saying they are just for Roch.

I am not saying he should say anything 'just for Roch' however surely we should all have our minds open to possibilities or do we automatically believe someone is lying because what they say does not fit in with our personal opinion?
I can understand it is difficult to believe when one has not seen the photos but I cannot understand how anything can be dismissed out of hand.

[Kaldin]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Roch is lying. I'm certainly not. We only have the photos to go on, and they're open to interpretation. It's my opinion that the blood on Sheila's lower arm are from drops of blood which have trickled, not from injuries, but that's just me.

[maggie]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Roch is lying. I'm certainly not. We only have the photos to go on, and they're open to interpretation. It's my opinion that the blood on Sheila's lower arm are from drops of blood which have trickled, not from injuries, but that's just me.

That's fair enough, I was not saying we don't all have a right to our opinion, of course we do.  I was just wondering how some can be adamant that Roch is wrong when he has seen the original photos and others haven't.

[lookout]

So who shot her the first time?

That first shot could well have happened if June had tried to wrestle/retrieve the rifle from Sheila. At first I'd said her father,but Sheila wouldn't have been able to have climbed two sets of stairs after that.There must have been some sort of struggle to obtain the rifle because of defence marks on both June and Nevill.
Or,it could have been a deliberate shot from the angle that it went in.Obviously I'm only surmising because if Sheila aimed to shoot herself,she wouldn't have hit her jawbone.This is why I say the first shot wasn't self-administered.

[David1819]

I am curious why you won't even contemplate that Roch MAY be right about Sheila's defence wounds?  As you are certain JB was not the killer why do you dismiss the fact that Sheila may have fought over the rifle with the other victims?
I am genuinely interested not trying to score points.

I don't dismiss the possibility that Sheila fought over the rifle. I dismiss the possibility that those "wounds" on her arm were caused by such event.

[Kaldin]

That's fair enough, I was not saying we don't all have a right to our opinion, of course we do.  I was just wondering how some can be adamant that Roch is wrong when he has seen the original photos and others haven't.

It's certainly a possibility that the blood is from injuries, but Dr Vanezis would have mentioned them, and the dark spots just look where trickles of blood have stopped to me.

[Roch]

Why should he, if they aren’t there it’s no use saying they are just for Roch.

It's got nothing to do with saying it for me.  The wounds are there.

Just like the wound on June's chin and the wounds on her legs (as described).  Just like I said about the earring being ripped out of Sheila's ear etc. etc. It's all true. 

There cannot be a fight between mother and daughter at the trial of Jeremy Bamber... otherwise Bamber walks out of the court a free man.  Mick Ainsley was brought on to the case to prevent that from happening.  Therefore - any action taken under the stewardship of Ainsley had to conceal Sheila's involvement; conceal June's response and accentuate anything bad or suspicious about Jeremy.

They hid the fight between mother / daughter.

[Kaldin]

That first shot could well have happened if June had tried to wrestle/retrieve the rifle from Sheila. At first I'd said her father,but Sheila wouldn't have been able to have climbed two sets of stairs after that.There must have been some sort of struggle to obtain the rifle because of defence marks on both June and Nevill.
Or,it could have been a deliberate shot from the angle that it went in.Obviously I'm only surmising because if Sheila aimed to shoot herself,she wouldn't have hit her jawbone.This is why I say the first shot wasn't self-administered.

That's an interesting theory. Whereabouts in the bedroom do you think this could have happened? June went round to Nevill's side of the bed at one point, so could it have been there? That would mean that Sheila had to follow June back to the door, shoot her twice, and then go back to Nevill's side of the bed and shoot herself.

[guest7363]

It's got nothing to do with saying it for me.  The wounds are there.

Just like the wound on June's chin and the wounds on her legs (as described).  Just like I said about the earring being ripped out of Sheila's ear etc. etc. It's all true. 

There cannot be a fight between mother and daughter at the trial of Jeremy Bamber... otherwise Bamber walks out of the court a free man.  Mick Ainsley was brought on to the case to prevent that from happening.  Therefore - any action taken under the stewardship of Ainsley had to conceal Sheila's involvement; conceal June's response and accentuate anything bad or suspicious about Jeremy.

They hid the fight between mother / daughter.

It was Maggie who brought you up Roch, I don’t for one minute think your lying, it’s how each one see’s and interprets, it’s not against you ive always told you if I thought they were I would say so.