Bullets fired and reloading

[Jane]

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.

Given the amount of times we've been assured that "evidence exists" only to find out that it's only in someones' imagination, I feel -under the rules of "You caught me once. You won't do it twice"- we have every right to be skeptical. Roch -giving him benefit of doubt- may believe he's been shown original pictures, but Hey! we've been shown enough -alleged- originals to prevent us accepting all we're told.

[guest154]

His official PM report will have been the version sanctioned under Mick Ainsley's tenure. Although there are some handwritten pm notes that make no mention of the injuries - these appear to be referring to contaminants, imo. 

Vanezis was approached by DS Stan Jones and asked to consider Jeremy as a suspect.  He expressed something along the lines of being 'unimpressed' by Jones' suggestion.  However - this exchange must have occurred very early on. 

Despite Sheila having two gunshot wounds and allegedly no other wounds - Vanezis was unimpressed at the suggestion that Jeremy was the killer.   I think it more likely that Vanezis was unimpressed with the notion that Jeremy was the killer - because Sheila did have fight wounds consistent with an incident between the three deceased adults.   By the time it came to trial, Vanezis was on message.

Vanezis could not be allowed to testify that Sheila has such wounds - otherwise the case against Jeremy would have possibly collapsed.  His questioning was orchestrated to dismiss such marks as 'smears'.

Roch, this is dreadful rubbish. This advances the whole conspiracy to such an early start - that you're saying people lied when they had no reason to. V's reports were detailed. There is no reason he would have failed to list these wounds on Sheila - the reason he didn't is because they do not exist.

This all sounds like something that the despicable official campaign team would promote.

I've seen the clearer photos. They do not show anything that you alledge. I do not understand how anyone looking at them can see what you claim so am glad to see both sides mostly disagreeing with this.

[Kaldin]

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.

Dr Vanezis said that there were earrings in both of Sheila's ears. 

[guest154]

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.

Howcome people don't think you've seen the clearer photos? You were talking about clearer photos a year ago, and unless my memory is failing me I think you even proved you had the clearer photos?

Plus they're on the red forum and have been for some time.

[Jane]

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.

But you don't give any reason why and saying it's not within your remit isn't good enough. Nothing happens for nothing. There's always a reason. It's highly unlikely that you don't have an opinion.

[Roch]

Dr Vanezis said that there were earrings in both of Sheila's ears. 

There were.  Stud type earrings.  But they are not the only earrings she wore.

[guest7363]

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.

Ive never said Roch is lying, I’ve said he’s got it wrong.

[maggie]

Given the amount of times we've been assured that "evidence exists" only to find out that it's only in someones' imagination, I feel -under the rules of "You caught me once. You won't do it twice"- we have every right to be skeptical. Roch -giving him benefit of doubt- may believe he's been shown original pictures, but Hey! we've been shown enough -alleged- originals to prevent us accepting all we're told.

Nothing wrong with being sceptical Jane, think we should all be sceptical but to my mind that is different from dismissing out of hand.

[Kaldin]

There were.  Stud type earrings.  But they are not the only earrings she wore.

Which earring was ripped from her ear then? If she wearing earrings at the post mortem, that can't have happened.

[Roch]

But you don't give any reason why and saying it's not within your remit isn't good enough. Nothing happens for nothing. There's always a reason. It's highly unlikely that you don't have an opinion.

It's not my work Jane (i.e. any fit-up of a suspect in this case...is not my work).  Therefore, I cannot provide you with the bonafide reasons.  Sorry but that is an honest and factual answer.  If another person does some wrongdoing - that person knows the motivation and reason behind the wrongdoing.

If you put a window through in your neighbourhood - I cannot explain why you did it.

[maggie]

Ive never said Roch is lying, I’ve said he’s got it wrong.

I may have used the wrong word there but as he says he has seen these photos and you say you haven't, how can you say Roch is wrong?  You haven't seen them therefore you haven't had the opportunity to make up your own mind therefore surely you don't know if he is right or wrong.

[Jane]

Which earring was ripped from her ear then? If she wearing earrings at the post mortem, that can't have happened.

I was about to ask the same question. Those I know with split earlobes can't wear earrings other than those which clip on.

[Roch]

Roch, this is dreadful rubbish. This advances the whole conspiracy to such an early start - that you're saying people lied when they had no reason to. V's reports were detailed. There is no reason he would have failed to list these wounds on Sheila - the reason he didn't is because they do not exist.

This all sounds like something that the despicable official campaign team would promote.

I've seen the clearer photos. They do not show anything that you alledge. I do not understand how anyone looking at them can see what you claim so am glad to see both sides mostly disagreeing with this.

Mat, with respect... you are are entitled to your opinions.  I would not waste my time arguing dreadful rubbish for six months.

Unless you have the original pm reports from Vaneziz.. submitted at the time police were dealing with the coroner, I suggest you rethink your remarks.

[Roch]

Ive never said Roch is lying, I’ve said he’s got it wrong.

I understand you are not calling me a liar.  Thanks for that.  I have got it right though.

[guest7363]

I may have used the wrong word there but as he says he has seen these photos and you say you haven't, how can you say Roch is wrong?  You haven't seen them therefore you haven't had the opportunity to make up your own mind therefore surely you don't know if he is right or wrong.

Well he’s asking us to make our minds up on the photos he and Bill put out, saying he has others I can’t comment, we’ve been down this road before too many times, if he has fair do, until then he has it wrong.