0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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?
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?
Aye ? To lead. To be led.
If B is the answer too, that the PM report is refered to elsewhere - then where else is it refered to? I'm guessing a document the CT have?
That was just two of the right hand images. The only reason they were posted up was because they already existed on the forum (albeit in lesser definition). Somebody on the red then posted a video still comparison of the back of her hand - which is actually not too bad an image - and is the image generally used on here (when referring to this particular argument).
I cannot recall it being specifically referred to elsewhere - though as you know, there was a separate case file for when Sheila Caffell - when she was the sole suspect for the killings. Surely in order to complete and inquest, the coroner would need to have sight, of the PM report in some way or form? Meaning PV's first statement detailing the bodies of the victims cannot have been 30/9/85? Eight weeks after the killings?
It's a Laurel and Hardy Joke Lookout
Do you think the blood marks on the clearer images posted are injuries? The ones on her hands.This isn't my recollection of how things actually happened. But maybe my memory needs re-freshing. Maybe Caroline or Hartley can confirm if there was actually seperate case files.
Do you think the blood marks on the clearer images posted are injuries? The ones on her hands.
Are you another fan ?
Off topic interlude ..... Totally! My dad loved them so have many happy memories of watching as a kid - I have the complete set of movies on hard drive - love em! Stan went to school for a while in Bishop Auckland and we have a statue of him in the town center https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=stan+laurel+statue+bishop+auckland&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOqpaakPPWAhULI8AKHVXECnkQ7AkIPQ&biw=911&bih=409#imgrc=GSpkHeDITMjQNM:
Hi Mat, Roch is correct, the case on Jeremy was treated as a new investigation and I believe there were two case files.
Patently. They are fingernail wounds. One has connected fully and the other is as if the fingernail has connected partially. Both have resulting scrape marks, the same width as the associated wounds. The mark on her forefinger finger is different. Close-up, it appears to be an angled cut.
But not two PM reports? The PM report regarding the bodies would be the same no matter who was being investigated.
No, no. Absolutely not. I respect your opinion, Roch. But I do not see it that way, maggie can call is bias but hand on heart looking at those photos that is not what I see.I will post a link to the photos from the red forum and others can look.http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7970.msg415881#msg415881
