Possible interpretation of the upper neck wound

[Roch]

Has anyone noticed what I suggest is a 'graze' underneath the lower entry wound?  It never gets mentioned on here.

[lookout]

I thought it was more a smudge,Roch ? Unless I'm looking at the wrong part of the pic.

[lookout]

I think it's dried blood as remarked upon by Inspector Ivor Montgomery and Dr. Craig respectively. From what I've read the average time it takes for blood to dry is 60 minutes.

I think that the 60 minutes of drying time would be dependant on a few factors,Steve.

[Luminous Wanderer]

I think it's dried blood as remarked upon by Inspector Ivor Montgomery and Dr. Craig respectively. From what I've read the average time it takes for blood to dry is 60 minutes.

Thanks.  To be fair, it does distinctly look like bruising to me.  I say that not to be biased, that's simply what I think.  But I'll have to read up on the sources you have given.

It strikes me that Dr Craig had no special qualifications beyond those of a jobbing doctor.  He was a local G.P., a station that commands respect of course, and he was highly-educated, but as a police surgeon his job was not that of a pathologist or other forensic examiner and his view about the forensic particulars can't necessarily be taken seriously.  The same, much more so, applies to Inspector Montgomery. 

Another point - in the main picture, see the large blood splatter further down her nightdress?  I raised above the question of whether the blood was tested, as that might not necessarily just be hers.  Another point is how the blood could just be on one side of her nightdress if it was Bamber who shot her?  Perhaps she was already lying down, but if we can assume she was standing when first shot, would the blood be patterned as shown in the photo?

Another question: Do we know if there was blood on the back of Sheila's nightdress?

[lookout]

Why would you ask such a question when the wound had been as far from her back as you could get ?

[Luminous Wanderer]

Has anyone noticed what I suggest is a 'graze' underneath the lower entry wound?  It never gets mentioned on here.

Dr Vanezis mentions in his autopsy report that there were no other external injuries to the head/neck area. I do think we have to assume that Sheila was stripped and examined head to toe post-mortem for wounds, marks, bruises, abrasions, etc. One way to resolve it would be to see photographs of the autopsy.  Are they available?

I'm assuming you are thinking along the lines of a struggle/altercation?  That would explain it.  Either that, or the graze could be explained by either rubbing of the muzzle end or some other part of the unmoderated rifle against her skin, or maybe even the discharge of the rifle?

[Roch]

I thought it was more a smudge,Roch ? Unless I'm looking at the wrong part of the pic.

It is the mark below and seemingly independent from the lower entry wound. 

[Luminous Wanderer]

Why would you ask such a question when the wound had been as far from her back as you could get ?

Because, unlike you, I am not going round making assumptions.  For one thing, any blood found on Sheila would not necessarily be her own blood and I am asking myself whether there was any other evidence on Sheila that might suggest she had been in a struggle with other people in the house. 

[Steve_uk]

Thanks.  To be fair, it does distinctly look like bruising to me.  I say that not to be biased, that's simply what I think.  But I'll have to read up on the sources you have given.

It strikes me that Dr Craig had no special qualifications beyond those of a jobbing doctor.  He was a local G.P., a station that commands respect of course, and he was highly-educated, but as a police surgeon his job was not that of a pathologist or other forensic examiner and his view about the forensic particulars can't necessarily be taken seriously.  The same, much more so, applies to Inspector Montgomery. 

Another point - in the main picture, see the large blood splatter further down her nightdress?  I raised above the question of whether the blood was tested, as that might not necessarily just be hers.  Another point is how the blood could just be on one side of her nightdress if it was Bamber who shot her?  Perhaps she was already lying down, but if we can assume she was standing when first shot, would the blood be patterned as shown in the photo?

Another question: Do we know if there was blood on the back of Sheila's nightdress?

I'll quote from Carol Ann Lee's book as this is not my area of expertise:

Vanezis recorded in his initial notes: "Bloodstained palm print on nightdress matches bloodstains appear to have been transferred from r. hand..both hands not contaminated apart from bloodstains." But in court he declared that Sheila's hands were "completely free of blood and if she'd pressed against the nightdress I would have still seen some traces of blood on her palms." He explained that blood on her nightdress "appeared to have been transferred from her wrist" although "the palm of her hand was certainly not contaminated with blood, but there was spotting of blood associated and close to the wrist."

Asked to address the discrepancy today, Vanezis muses: "I'm not sure whether I said that after the blood had been washed from her hands." Regarding his courtroom statement about the stain on her nightdress, he reflects: "The smear in the blood on her neck wounds is obviously from putting her hand up to it. Her fingers could then have made the marks on her nightdress because there are three streaks forming the stain-two together and one slightly apart. The marks could be from her wrist, but the thickness of them definitely resembles fingers and she certainly has some blood on the side of her hand. There's also a line through the streaks where the material has folded, giving a slightly distorted pattern.". The blood trails evident on Sheila's lower right arm, together with substantial bloodstaining on the right side of the nightdress in the armpit area and below, reinforced the probability that she had raised her hand to her neck."

[Steve_uk]

Because, unlike you, I am not going round making assumptions.  For one thing, any blood found on Sheila would not necessarily be her own blood and I am asking myself whether there was any other evidence on Sheila that might suggest she had been in a struggle with other people in the house.

Well you might find common cause with Roch, who has argued this point. But I don't see it. I don't recall anyone saying there was any O Type blood on her nightie (Nevill was O, June was A) and the nightie itself was disposed of by Police in contravention of a court order in 1996.

[Roch]

Dr Vanezis mentions in his autopsy report that there were no other external injuries to the head/neck area.
 I do think we have to assume that Sheila was stripped and examined head to toe post-mortem for wounds, marks, bruises, abrasions, etc. One way to resolve it would be to see photographs of the autopsy.  Are they available?

I'm assuming you are thinking along the lines of a struggle/altercation?  That would explain it.  Either that, or the graze be explained by either rubbing of the muzzle end or some other part of the unmoderated rifle against her skin or even the discharge of the rifle?

Good post.  The PM photos are not available for public viewing but I think JB has some if not all.  I don't know what the quality of PM photos is like.  However, if this particular mark is a graze, I would expect it to be visible after the area had been cleansed.  Some of the smaller cuts elsewhere may be less visible after cleansing.

[Luminous Wanderer]

 

I'll quote from Carol Ann Lee's book as this is not my area of expertise:

Vanezis recorded in his initial notes: "Bloodstained palm print on nightdress matches bloodstains appear to have been transferred from r. hand..both hands not contaminated apart from bloodstains." But in court he declared that Sheila's hands were "completely free of blood and if she'd pressed against the nightdress I would have still seen some traces of blood on her palms." He explained that blood on her nightdress "appeared to have been transferred from her wrist" although "the palm of her hand was certainly not contaminated with blood, but there was spotting of blood associated and close to the wrist."

Asked to address the discrepancy today, Vanezis muses: "I'm not sure whether I said that after the blood had been washed from her hands." Regarding his courtroom statement about the stain on her nightdress, he reflects: "The smear in the blood on her neck wounds is obviously from putting her hand up to it. Her fingers could then have made the marks on her nightdress because there are three streaks forming the stain-two together and one slightly apart. The marks could be from her wrist, but the thickness of them definitely resembles fingers and she certainly has some blood on the side of her hand. There's also a line through the streaks where the material has folded, giving a slightly distorted pattern.". The blood trails evident on Sheila's lower right arm, together with substantial bloodstaining on the right side of the nightdress in the armpit area and below, reinforced the probability that she had raised her hand to her neck."

Thanks.  This, and the autopsy report, makes it unclear whether any tests were done on the blood found on Sheila.  It would appear that the pathologist and the police have simply assumed it was her blood and have smoothed over that assumption. 

That said, you have to balance that with what the autopsy report mentions about the loci of the blood stains: re-reading it, it does seem that the blood was only on the front of her nightdress.  I think that in itself does point to Jeremy Bamber as the killer.  Not that I am coming to any conclusions, but if Sheila was the killer, you would think that, at the least, there would be a struggle with Nevill, with the probability that her nightdress would reflect this: it would be torn, have Nevill's blood on it, the signs would surely be obvious. 

I think Jeremy, if he is innocent, has a big problem here.  Are pro-Bamber posters asking me to believe that Sheila shot everybody, and in addition to the Rivlin/Trezeon case theory that she calmly replaced the moderator back in the gun cupboard [must keep the place tidy!], she then had the presence of mind to strip down to her nightdress, put the forensically-incriminating clothing in the washer in order to frame Jeremy, then waited while the clothes washed, then maybe put the wet clothes away somewhere to dry inconspicuously as she killed herself while dressed in her nightdress?

This is not a conclusion, however.  I am neutral and I'm willing to find holes in this. Something that Jeremy does have going for him is that the pattern of the blood stains on Sheila does not seem very consistent with the idea that Jeremy shot her.

[Luminous Wanderer]

Well you might find common cause with Roch, who has argued this point. But I don't see it. I don't recall anyone saying there was any O Type blood on her nightie (Nevill was O, June was A) and the nightie itself was disposed of by Police in contravention of a court order in 1996.

As I have mentioned above, it looks to me (based on what I have read so far) that the blood on her nightdress was not tested.  If true, then that crucial omission has been smoothed-over by the pathologist and the police in their various reports and statements. 

If key evidence like the nightdress has been disposed of, then that is grim news.

[Steve_uk]

Thanks.  This, and the autopsy report, makes it unclear whether any tests were done on the blood found on Sheila.  It would appear that the pathologist and the police have simply assumed it was her blood and have smoothed over that assumption. 

That said, you have to balance that with what the autopsy report mentions about the loci of the blood stains: re-reading it, it does seem that the blood was only on the front of her nightdress.  I think that in itself does point to Jeremy Bamber as the killer.  Not that I am coming to any conclusions, but if Sheila was the killer, you would think that, at the least, there would be a struggle with Nevill, with the probability that her nightdress would reflect this: it would be torn, have Nevill's blood on it, the signs would surely be obvious. 

I think Jeremy, if he is innocent, has a big problem here.  Are pro-Bamber posters asking me to believe that Sheila shot everybody, and in addition to the Rivlin/Trezeon case theory that she calmly replaced the moderator back in the gun cupboard [must keep the place tidy!], she then had the presence of mind to strip down to her nightdress, put the forensically-incriminating clothing in the washer in order to frame Jeremy, then waited while the clothes washed, then maybe put the wet clothes away somewhere to dry inconspicuously as she killed herself while dressed in her nightdress?

This is not a conclusion, however.  I am neutral and I'm willing to find holes in this. Something that Jeremy does have going for him is that the pattern of the blood stains on Sheila does not seem very consistent with the idea that Jeremy shot her.

What joy to be able to agree. She could have burnt her clothes in the Aga though, since no inventory of her suitcase was undertaken upon arrival.

[Luminous Wanderer]

What joy to be able to agree. She could have burnt her clothes in the Aga though, since no inventory of her suitcase was undertaken upon arrival.

Yes, but wouldn't that be obvious to anybody who arrived on the scene later?  Surely that would be reported somewhere in the documents?

It's also difficult to believe Sheila could have thought things through like this if it was a murder-suicide scenario.  She was, presumably, a disorganised affective psychotic running amok: the idea of sophisticated planning is inimical to such a mindset.