Question: What is the source of that particular photograph? Is it the agreed photograph at trial taken from police evidence, with an index number and linked to the record of negatives? That might seem like an obvious question, but establishing provenance is essential as these photographs can be doctored or tampered with, especially nowadays with digital technology.
Some observations [not all of these are pertinent to David's question]:
(i). The blood looks wet, fresh and very red, and though that might just be the effect of the camera flash, equally it could be that the photograph has been tampered with. Or it could indicate something more sinister.
(ii). Regarding the mark referred to by David, my first thought on seeing it was that it is a mirror mark of the upper entry wound, probably caused by Sheila's chin immediately falling forward after the second shot. Or could be where Bamber pointed the end of the gun before deciding to shoot her elsewhere in the neck. However, the mark in question has a ring of bruising around it consistent with a contact wound, so it might not be a mirror mark or a test mark. I don't believe it is caused by simple 'cold' contact with the muzzle end of the rifle or the end of the moderator, as the case may be.
(iii). Could in fact the fragmented bullet provide a clue as to a possible explanation? It could either be that the mark in question is an exit wound. That may also explain why no blood can be seen out of the 'wound', as sometimes less blood comes from exit wounds. Alternatively, maybe Sheila was shot three times rather than twice?
(iv). Were tests done of the blood found on Sheila?
