Bullets fired and reloading

[JackieD]

OK, a fair post.  I can see where you're coming from.  Though I think that the images put up for hand - the wounds were easy to spot.  A person either wanted to recognise them as wounds or didn't want to recognise them as wounds.

Roch I believe you 100% and I will speak out when someone with NO integrity calls you out

I keep everything you see

[Jane]

I too know someone in the Met,who strangely has the same surname as a poster. Whether related I don't know I've never found out.

Well, whilst there's no earthly reason that it shouldn't have been bro in law, it would be silly to run away with the idea that he's the only cop in the Met, wouldn't it?

[lookout]

Tut tut.  I thought that language was only reserved for JB ?

[Roch]

You're not connected to the CT? If you're not then I apologise.. But 

As for the original PM report. It's an important point I don't want it to get lost in the mess this topic is becoming.
Do you think that there must be because :
A) You believe 100% they are wounds on Sheila so there MUST be a report.
B) You're seen it reffered to elsewhere?
or C) another?

A&B

People have previously sought to obtain the original PM report from when Sheila was a suspect and from when Vanezis expressed he was 'unimpressed' with the suggestion Jeremy was behind the killings.   

What you are asking for is almost a trick question though - as EP are unlikely to refer to two different PM reports are they?  Since to do so would imply there was an original PM report that pre-dated the statement used under Ainsley, dated 30/9/85. 

It cannot have taken PV 8 weeks to complete a PM report - if the police were trying to push the incident through a coroner's inquest in August?

[Roch]

Roch I believe you 100%

Thank you.  Well I suppose it's only natural for people to be cautious, sceptical and to believe in the authority and integrity of pathologists.

However, people on here would be surprised as to who is aware of the wounds; who treat the matter seriously; and who was involved in high level discussions relating to this issue and the associated gate-keeping antics. 

[maggie]

Thank you.  Well I suppose it's only natural for people to be cautious, sceptical and to believe in the authority and integrity of pathologists.

However, people on here would be surprised as to who is aware of the wounds; who treat the matter seriously; and who was involved in high level discussions relating to this issue and the associated gate-keeping antics.

I agree it is only natural for people to be sceptical especially when we have been duped so many times one way and another.  For all that I do think complete refusal to contemplate any other possibility points to cognitive dissonance and bias.

[Roch]

Wounds that you say she had but haven't seen?

How would you know if I hadn't seen them? 

If I stated I had seen wounds for June - you would say I was wrong regarding the marks and it was just my interpretation.

If I stated I hadn't seen wounds for June - you would say I was wrong and was too trusting of other people's interpretation. 

I started two threads for June's wounds - you can see her chin wound and you can definitely see her right shin wounds on the forum images (even though they are poor).

[Caroline]

You can lead a horse to water...

But a pencil must be lead.

[Caroline]

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.

Wow! Now that IS interesting! 

[Kaldin]

I still don't get this earring business. Dr Vanzis said Sheila had an earring in each ear when he did the post mortem. Was the earring which got ripped out a third one she was wearing?

[lookout]

But a pencil must be lead.

Aye ? To lead. To be led.

[maggie]

I still don't get this earring business. Dr Vanzis said Sheila had an earring in each ear when he did the post mortem. Was the earring which got ripped out a third one she was wearing?

She may have done kaldin, in the '80s lots of women had their ears pierced a couple of times.  I used to wear a stud and a dangley ear ring in each ear back then.  Stopped wearing the dangley ones once I had babies in case they grabbed one and ripped it out.

[Jane]

She may have done kaldin, in the '80s lots of women had their ears pierced a couple of times.  I used to wear a stud and a dangley ear ring in each ear back then.  Stopped wearing the dangley ones once I had babies in case they grabbed one and ripped it out.

I don't think it was fashionable at the time, but there's nothing to say that Sheila wasn't ahead of the crowd.

[guest154]

I agree it is only natural for people to be sceptical especially when we have been duped so many times one way and another.  For all that I do think complete refusal to contemplate any other possibility points to cognitive dissonance and bias.

This isn't about being duped. You don't have to take Roch's opinion on it. You can see the photos for yourself on the red. And they've been posted on here but seem to have been removed. You commented on the photos did you not? You agreed that they now look to you like scratches and that you can't believe you hadn't noticed that before?

[Roch]

She may have done kaldin, in the '80s lots of women had their ears pierced a couple of times.  I used to wear a stud and a dangley ear ring in each ear back then.  Stopped wearing the dangley ones once I had babies in case they grabbed one and ripped it out.

I think you have hit the nail on the head.  Personally, I'm not au fait with ladies' accessories