Bullets fired and reloading

[Kaldin]

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:

There's a lovely statue of them both in Ulverston too.

[Kaldin]

So where's his associated statement, made for the original investigation / case-file?  The one that presumably, EP would be relying on, to get the incident through the coroner's inquest?

Very good question Roch.

[guest154]

So where's his associated statement, made for the original investigation / case-file?  The one that presumably, EP would be relying on, to get the incident through the coroner's inquest?

Who knows?
Maybe it's been posted. Maybe it hasn't. Maybe Mike has it, maybe Jeremy has it. Jeremy said he has everything.
Do you think V's handwritten notes are faked? Made at a later date?

I don't think you'll get any expert to say they can see cuts on those hands, nevermind being able to actually say they were caused by fingernails.

And seeing as reports mean more than photographs to the CCRC and take precedent I don't see this as a huge deal. It's more for internet debate than actually being anything Bamber could/would ever try to actually use in an appeal.

Then you have to explain, what they are and how they were formed, imo. 

I have to explain to you what drips of blood are?
I think a good few people already have.

[maggie]

But a pencil must be lead.

[Caroline]

So where's his associated statement, made for the original investigation / case-file?  The one that presumably, EP would be relying on, to get the incident through the coroner's inquest?

Not sure what you mean here - there weren't two autopsy's. Two police investigations has nothig to do with the coroner. He made his report, it didn't change so there aren't two.

[Caroline]

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).

I don't know if you have seen them, which is why I asked. Have you seen them are are you just relying on what you have been told and the far from perfect pictures we have here?

[Caroline]

There's a lovely statue of them both in Ulverston too.

Yes, have been to the museum there - quaint! They even have the toilet seat from his old house.

[guest154]

Not sure what you mean here - there weren't two autopsy's. Two police investigations has nothig to do with the coroner. He made his report, it didn't change so there aren't two.

I agree, which is what I was trying to say. There wouldn't be two. An autopsy is an autopsy.

[Caroline]

I agree, which is what I was trying to say. There wouldn't be two. An autopsy is an autopsy.

Of course Mat - the cause of death was gunshots, that stayed the same no matter who the killer was. Also the report was written was Sheila was the suspect, this proves they only used one report. Otherwise, when the focus shifted to Jeremy, a second report would have to be dated after Jeremy's arrest. They used the same one - clearly.

[Kaldin]

The question is - why is the statement dated 30th September? The post mortem report would be dated 7th or 8th August.

[Caroline]

Spurting blood cannot break the skin.  Nor can it explain the wounds on the back of her hand which are gouge / scrape marks made by a fingernail.  I've already explained this to you on numerous occasions.  She has marks on her upper arm (bloodied cuts) completely independent from any run or smear nearby.  How likely is it that a victim has cuts on her upper up and hand - but the rest of the blood on her arm is merely formed by spurts / runs?   If you insist on holding with your position - you will at some point have to concede that Sheila Caffell's skin was broken in several places from her upper arm down to her hand - but the runs on her arm are from the spurting neck wound.  You will then be saying that although you believe the runs on her arm are from the spurting neck wound, she must still have been in a fight / scuffle in order to have obtained the other areas of broken skin. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8745.msg419337.html#msg419337

Furthermore - her earring was ripped from here ear and her necklace / pendant was yanked from behind in the struggle.  June has shin kick / cuts right leg.  On left leg she has curved cuts.   She also has a gashed chin, possibly from a thumbnail. 

The area of Sheila's hand where the blood is supposed to have transferred to the runs on her wrist, hardly has any blood on it.  It's more like smudged blood and has a thin cut and a couple of nick marks (literally the skin is broken). 

Spurting blood does not break human skin

What do you mean by 'her earring was 'ripped' from here ear do you mean it was split? Because that's not what the xray shows.

[Roch]

Who knows?
Maybe it's been posted. Maybe it hasn't. Maybe Mike has it, maybe Jeremy has it. Jeremy said he has everything.
Do you think V's handwritten notes are faked? Made at a later date?

I don't think you'll get any expert to say they can see cuts on those hands, nevermind being able to actually say they were caused by fingernails.

And seeing as reports mean more than photographs to the CCRC and take precedent I don't see this as a huge deal. It's more for internet debate than actually being anything Bamber could/would ever try to actually use in an appeal.


I have to explain to you what drips of blood are?
I think a good few people already have.

OK Mat, I'm going to be honest with you. Firstly I regard you as quite predictable.  Your presence here is always to shore-up the official case, the agencies involved and the processes involved.  You don't deviate from that line.  In this sense, I regard you as not very transparent.  You're like some kind of PR man for this conviction. 

Secondly, I'm not involved in trying to get any professional to say that the marks on the back of Sheila's hand are this or that. 

Thirdly, you highlighted a point I have previously tried to make, regarding what I would term as 'keeping Bamber in on a technicality'.  I've been very clear that my personal opinion is that JB will never get out - precisely because of the play-dirty tactics that you've highlighted above.  But you see, this isn't about the CCRC or legal technicalities that can be used to keep a person in prison.  To me it's about searching for the truth of what took place at WHF.  You're so concerned with shoring up the CCRC and their legal technicalities - that you don't really seem to care about finding out what really took place.   That's your prerogative Mat.  Personally I do not feel that such an approach is in anyway respectful to Daniel, Nicholas, June and Nevill.  But that's just my slant on things. 

Lastly - you're claiming that the marks on the back of her right hand are drips of blood?  OK if that works for you and you are comfortable with playing along with that .. again - your prerogative.  I guarantee you one thing - if those marks were on the back of your own bairn's hand - there's no way on earth you would consider them or label them as drips of blood.   

[Roch]

What do you mean by 'her earring was 'ripped' from here ear do you mean it was split? Because that's not what the xray shows.

I don't know whether Sheila's ear was split.  I've not heard that it was - but that XRay doesn't really show much regarding her ears anyway?

[guest154]

OK Mat, I'm going to be honest with you. Firstly I regard you as quite predictable.  Your presence here is always to shore-up the official case, the agencies involved and the processes involved.  You don't deviate from that line.  In this sense, I regard you as not very transparent.  You're like some kind of PR man for this conviction. 

Secondly, I'm not involved in trying to get any professional to say that the marks on the back of Sheila's hand are this or that. 

Thirdly, you highlighted a point I have previously tried to make, regarding what I would term as 'keeping Bamber in on a technicality'.  I've been very clear that my personal opinion is that JB will never get out - precisely because of the play-dirty tactics that you've highlighted above.  But you see, this isn't about the CCRC or legal technicalities that can be used to keep a person in prison.  To me it's about searching for the truth of what took place at WHF.  You're so concerned with shoring up the CCRC and their legal technicalities - that you don't really seem to care about finding out what really took place.   That's your prerogative Mat.  Personally I do not feel that such an approach is in anyway respectful to Daniel, Nicholas, June and Nevill.  But that's just my slant on things. 

Lastly - you're claiming that the marks on the back of her right hand are drips of blood?  OK if that works for you and you are comfortable with playing along with that .. again - your prerogative.  I guarantee you one thing - if those marks were on the back of your own bairn's hand - there's no way on earth you would consider them or label them as drips of blood.

I do care about what really took place Roch. I just do not believe what you are saying is visible. It isn't. People can label me as a PR man or whatever they like. But I am never going to agree with something I don't agree with. I didn't see a palm print on the bible, and I fought with Caroline about it. I'll never say I can see something if I can't and if I don't agree with it whoever posts it.

I dont see anyone else jumping up to defend those marks as nail marks.

I think it's a bit rich to mention being respectful to Daniel, Nicholas, June and Nevill.  You're offering financial bets on the case, do I don't think I need preaching to in that regard. I've spoken up repeatedly whenver I have felt anyone was disrespectful to the victims.

[Roch]

I do care about what really took place Roch. I just do not believe what you are saying is visible. It isn't. People can label me as a PR man or whatever they like. But I am never going to agree with something I don't agree with. I didn't see a palm print on the bible, and I fought with Caroline about it. I'll never say I can see something if I can't and if I don't agree with it whoever posts it.

I dont see anyone else jumping up to defend those marks as nail marks.

I think it's a bit rich to mention being respectful to Daniel, Nicholas, June and Nevill.  You're offering financial bets on the case, do I don't think I need preaching to in that regard. I've spoken up repeatedly whenver I have felt anyone was disrespectful to the victims.

You'd have to be member of the red forum in order to see the images in the link you put up. They changed their settings at some point.