Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Roch on February 06, 2022, 09:40:PM
-
I should have just posted this on the other thread. It can be seen as a small oval grey shape surrounded by blood, within the folds of the nightdress. This is near the shoulder / armpit area and below the frill area. Visible in images MS6; MS10; MS11; MS12; MS29; MS34. Page 2 of the photos in Archive and Library.
-
Sheila looks so small in the picture of her in the deceased position. If I didn't know she was 27, I would have guessed she was over 10 years younger.
Going by what Bamber & Pamela Boutflour said, Sheila would have barely had the energy to walk upstairs & change into her nightdress.
-
I should have just posted this on the other thread. It can be seen as a small oval grey shape surrounded by blood, within the folds of the nightdress. This is near the shoulder / armpit area and below the frill area. Visible in images MS6; MS10; MS11; MS12; MS29; MS34. Page 2 of the photos in Archive and Library.
Thank-you for that, Roch. However, having stared until my eyes hurt, I failed to see anything resembling a pendent of any type. I use that expression because I noticed that she was wearing a neck chain and wondered if the pendent, you say is there, was part of the chain?
-
Thank-you for that, Roch. However, having stared until my eyes hurt, I failed to see anything resembling a pendent of any type. I use that expression because I noticed that she was wearing a neck chain and wondered if the pendent, you say is there, was part of the chain?
On the images above, the item looks like a small oval grey patch, surrounded by blood. This is because of the poor definition of the photos. It is beneath the frill line, close to the shoulder / armpit area. You will not see a pendant earring because of the definition. You will see the same oval patch in all of the images listed above. If you look at the image in the article that Cambridge posted up, you can work out where to look for the oval grey patch on the images listed above.
-
There appears to be something there in the CS images you mention Roch and the pixelated image in the Metro actually looks clearer if you stand back and look at it or shrink the image to a thumbnail.
I think this could well be an earring but it's hard to say that this is anything more than yet another curiosity.
-
There appears to be something there in the CS images you mention Roch and the pixelated image in the Metro actually looks clearer if you stand back and look at it or shrink the image to a thumbnail.
I think this could well be an earring but it's hard to say that this is anything more than yet another curiosity.
AD, much as I'd like to say that you've made clear whatever the object is, IF it's such. Sadly, all I can say is that, thanks to your arrow, I now know where to look. I'm not certain how it might be claimed, definitively, to be anything at all, as enlargement has revealed other 'patches' which seem similar. Perhaps it's another of those anomalies referred to as being "a trick of the light"?
-
AD, much as I'd like to say that you've made clear whatever the object is, IF it's such. Sadly, all I can say is that, thanks to your arrow, I now know where to look. I'm not certain how it might be claimed, definitively, to be anything at all, as enlargement has revealed other 'patches' which seem similar. Perhaps it's another of those anomalies referred to as being "a trick of the light"?
I have spent a good 10 minutes examining the images in the library and all I can see is an indistinct shape.
This is a shrunken version of the Metro image. Unfortunately, I no longer have photoshop so this is the best I could do.
Edit to say, Bah! - it appears the same size now it's uploaded! Standing back or squinting helps.
-
Poor Sheila.
Physically very weak & light. Bare footed, docile, un cordinated, half asleep, in the dark, under the 'sedative effects' of Haloperiodal, confused, unaware of what had happened, scared & trusting her brother.
Easy for Bamber. Whether she had woken or not.
-
I have spent a good 10 minutes examining the images in the library and all I can see is an indistinct shape.
This is a shrunken version of the Metro image. Unfortunately, I no longer have photoshop so this is the best I could do.
Edit to say, Bah! - it appears the same size now it's uploaded! Standing back or squinting helps.
Oh dear! It takes me back to the images we were asked to look at in psychology classes. According to what we saw, it was indicative of our personality type. It said things about us that often were best not revealed!!! :o
-
AD, much as I'd like to say that you've made clear whatever the object is, IF it's such. Sadly, all I can say is that, thanks to your arrow, I now know where to look. I'm not certain how it might be claimed, definitively, to be anything at all, as enlargement has revealed other 'patches' which seem similar. Perhaps it's another of those anomalies referred to as being "a trick of the light"?
At least you are showing interest Jane, along with Armchair. The following images may assist. There is no reason why the folds in Sheila's nightdress would appear iridescent in one very limited and specific area. Therefore, I think we can safely rule out 'trick of the light II'. It may be helpful to hold your laptop at arms length when viewing the images.
SC's nightdress is uniform in colour, as is her bloodstaining and skin tone. The object in question reflects light. It is likely to have been chrome-like in appearance, in my opinion.
-
At least you are showing interest Jane, along with Armchair. The following images may assist. There is no reason why the folds in Sheila's nightdress would appear iridescent in one very limited and specific area. Therefore, I think we can safely rule out 'trick of the light II'. It may be helpful to hold your laptop at arms length when viewing the images.
SC's nightdress is uniform in colour, as is her bloodstaining and skin tone. The object in question reflects light. It is likely to have been chrome-like in appearance, in my opinion.
Those are much better images, thanks Roch.
Oddly, the area appears black on some of the library images, (MS12, MS14) yet the object appears to reflect light in others.
-
Those are much better images, thanks Roch.
Oddly, the area appears black on some of the library images, (MS12, MS14) yet the object appears to reflect light in others.
I had noticed it seemed absent in MS14. I reasoned that it must have either been removed or was obscured / just out of shot, due to angle.
-
So can you imagine that being ripped off the ear ? The type of injury it would cause ?
-
I have looked at the picture in Photoshop, but cannot do much with the image. Definitely looks like a piece of jewelry with a heart shape in it.
-
It looks like a metal chess piece ( castle )
-
So can you imagine that being ripped off the ear ? The type of injury it would cause ?
I wonder when the resident Vanezis worshippers are going to explain how he missed the presence of the earring and why he didn’t mention it, or the injury caused when it was ripped off the right ear?
-
I wonder when the resident Vanezis worshippers are going to explain how he missed the presence of the earring and why he didn’t mention it, or the injury caused when it was ripped off the right ear?
Since women began having numerous holes in their ears to facilitate several earrings, I fail to see that one being missed would ring alarm bells. What would have, though, is what occurs when an earring is ripped OUT! Having once been the cause of such, I know a little bit about earrings being ripped "off" ears. The tail of the comb I was wielding went through a gold hoop. I hadn't realized and continued the combing motion. It ripped the earring downwards and it exited from the tear. There was blood everywhere!! It dripped on the client's clothes. It sprayed as she turned her head. Earlobes are fleshy. Fleshy bleeds copiously. Such, on Sheila, could not have been mistaken for anything other than a wound.
Incidentally, I find offensive your term "Vanezis worshipper". He worked independently. He was answerable to no one. There was no reason for him to have kept hidden SO obvious an injury.
-
He worked independently. He was answerable to no one. There was no reason for him to have kept hidden SO obvious an injury.
Well, there obviously was a reason. It may only become clear after he is charged with perjury, which could be a few years off.
I suspect that he was persuaded by Ainsley that it would be good for his career if he only mentioned things that were helpful to the prosecution and, indeed, Vanezis was rewarded handsomely over the years for being Ainsley's stooge.
Do you not find it strange that Vanezis supposedly did not make a detailed statement about the post-mortems until 30 September, nearly two months after the event? How convenient that details supporting the prosecution of Jeremy are contained in the statement but nothing about numerous other wounds?
I suspect that somewhere in Taff Jones investigation documentation there may well be an earlier version of Vanezis' witness statement in which he does discuss the numerous defensive injuries to all three adult victims.
I was not thinking of you specifically when I made reference to Vanezis worshippers, I had in mind someone who trumpets his so-called professional expertise regularly.
-
Well, there obviously was a reason. It may only become clear after he is charged with perjury, which could be a few years off.
I suspect that he was persuaded by Ainsley that it would be good for his career if he only mentioned things that were helpful to the prosecution and, indeed, Vanezis was rewarded handsomely over the years for being Ainsley's stooge.
Do you not find it strange that Vanezis supposedly did not make a detailed statement about the post-mortems until 30 September, nearly two months after the event? How convenient that details supporting the prosecution of Jeremy are contained in the statement but nothing about numerous other wounds?
I suspect that somewhere in Taff Jones investigation documentation there may well be an earlier version of Vanezis' witness statement in which he does discuss the numerous defensive injuries to all three adult victims.
I was not thinking of you specifically when I made reference to Vanezis worshippers, I had in mind someone who trumpets his so-called professional expertise regularly.
I'm not clear against whom it is you hold the greatest grudge, Bill, but you appear very determined to 'get' someone.
It's interesting to see that it's not a definitive that Venezis "did not make a detailed statement..............until nearly two months after the event". You say "supposedly. Might it not have been possible that there arose some problems regarding his not being called to the soc? I believe it perfectly possible, IF Ainsley had attempted to manipulate him, he'd have been experienced enough to have smelled the proverbial rat. As I've previously said, between the 5 victims, there were probably 'injuries' aplenty, of the routine, daily type, so not considered worthy of mention. I would not have considered an earring having recently been ripped through an earlobe, to be one such.
-
Well, there obviously was a reason. It may only become clear after he is charged with perjury, which could be a few years off.
I suspect that he was persuaded by Ainsley that it would be good for his career if he only mentioned things that were helpful to the prosecution and, indeed, Vanezis was rewarded handsomely over the years for being Ainsley's stooge.
Do you not find it strange that Vanezis supposedly did not make a detailed statement about the post-mortems until 30 September, nearly two months after the event? How convenient that details supporting the prosecution of Jeremy are contained in the statement but nothing about numerous other wounds?
I suspect that somewhere in Taff Jones investigation documentation there may well be an earlier version of Vanezis' witness statement in which he does discuss the numerous defensive injuries to all three adult victims.
I was not thinking of you specifically when I made reference to Vanezis worshippers, I had in mind someone who trumpets his so-called professional expertise regularly.
Not at all since he explained he was awaiting the outcome of toxicology tests.
Home Office pathologists are completely independent of the police. Are you able to cite a criminal case in the UK where a HO pathologist has conspired with the police to secure a conviction? Even if a pathologist was happy to put any moral considerations to one side why would he/she put his/her professional status/career and livelihood at stake to assist the police? And in this case all for a rural Essex farmer?
Prof Vanezis has always maintained he was unable to conclude murder or suicide. All his findings were fact checked by Prof Knight for the defence. Bamber was convicted on the silencer evidence and Julie Mugford's testimony.
-
I'm not clear against whom it is you hold the greatest grudge, Bill, but you appear very determined to 'get' someone.
It's interesting to see that it's not a definitive that Venezis "did not make a detailed statement..............until nearly two months after the event". You say "supposedly. Might it not have been possible that there arose some problems regarding his not being called to the soc? I believe it perfectly possible, IF Ainsley had attempted to manipulate him, he'd have been experienced enough to have smelled the proverbial rat. As I've previously said, between the 5 victims, there were probably 'injuries' aplenty, of the routine, daily type, so not considered worthy of mention. I would not have considered an earring having recently been ripped through an earlobe, to be one such.
Jane, with respect, you and Cambridge have just found out, 36 years after the event and probably a decade after your original interest in the case, that Sheila Caffell had a snagged, pendant earring on her nightdress. You only found this out because of me and Bill. You haven't found it out via CAL, who has apparently provided a 'difinitive' version of the case. You haven't found it out from Essex Constabulary or Peter Vanezis. You haven't found it out from those members who cry 'conspiracy theorist!' at every turn on here.
It is not the crown's case that Sheila struggled with Jeremy. It is highly likely that the only reason you're finding out now about this disappeared exhibit, is because during the second investigation, it was decided they didn't want to take the risk of allowing the defence to argue that Sheila had been in an altercation, as evidenced by said earring. They didn't want that level of reasonable doubt in the court room. So the earring was magicked away.
As for Vanezis.. presumably he receives a body that has been temporarily covered by a body bag, in order to preserve evidence. Therefore, what happened to the earring?
If we can see it in images which quite frankly are not crystal clear, then it was visible to all and sundry who cared to look on 7/8/85.
-
Jane, with respect, you and Cambridge have just found out, 36 years after the event and probably a decade after your original interest in the case, that Sheila Caffell had a snagged, pendant earring on her nightdress. You only found this out because of me and Bill.You haven't found it out via CAL, who has apparently provided a 'difinitive' version of the case. You haven't found it out from Essex Constabulary or Peter Vanezis. You haven't found it out from those members who cry 'conspiracy theorist!' at every turn on here.
It is not the crown's case that Sheila struggled with Jeremy. It is highly likely that the only reason you're finding out now about this disappeared exhibit, is because during the second investigation, it was decided they didn't want to take the risk of allowing the defence to argue that Sheila had been in an altercation, as evidenced by said earring. They didn't want that level of reasonable doubt in the court room. So the earring was magicked away.
As for Vanezis.. presumably he receives a body that has been temporarily covered by a body bag, in order to preserve evidence. Therefore, what happened to the earring?
If we can see it in images which quite frankly are not crystal clear, then it was visible to all and sundry who cared to look on 7/8/85.
WHAT?!
I can't speak for Jane but I haven't learned anything from you and Bill about any aspect of the pathological evidence. I think the pair of you are completely wrong about overlooked defence wounds and a snagged earring.
-
Jane, with respect, you and Cambridge have just found out, 36 years after the event and probably a decade after your original interest in the case, that Sheila Caffell had a snagged, pendant earring on her nightdress. You only found this out because of me and Bill. You haven't found it out via CAL, who has apparently provided a 'difinitive' version of the case. You haven't found it out from Essex Constabulary or Peter Vanezis. You haven't found it out from those members who cry 'conspiracy theorist!' at every turn on here.
It is not the crown's case that Sheila struggled with Jeremy. It is highly likely that the only reason you're finding out now about this disappeared exhibit, is because during the second investigation, it was decided they didn't want to take the risk of allowing the defence to argue that Sheila had been in an altercation, as evidenced by said earring. They didn't want that level of reasonable doubt in the court room. So the earring was magicked away.
As for Vanezis.. presumably he receives a body that has been temporarily covered by a body bag, in order to preserve evidence. Therefore, what happened to the earring?
If we can see it in images which quite frankly are not crystal clear, then it was visible to all and sundry who cared to look on 7/8/85.
I want to know why anyone would think this evidence is not important . Of course this has to be explained. No excuses and no cover ups
-
WHAT?!
I can't speak for Jane but I haven't learned anything from you and Bill about any aspect of the pathological evidence. I think the pair of you are completely wrong about overlooked defence wounds and a snagged earring.
You are making a fool of yourself. The snagged earring is there for all to see. I respectfully suggest that you would be better off displaying some humility and by conceding it is present in the images.
It's a shot across the bows - because there is plenty other pathological evidence that me and Bill have also cited, which also exists.
-
WHAT?!
I can't speak for Jane but I haven't learned anything from you and Bill about any aspect of the pathological evidence. I think the pair of you are completely wrong about overlooked defence wounds and a snagged earring.
But Roch and Bill AREN'T WRONG about this finding as I can also verify that !! I sincerely hope that in due course that everyone will recognise that it was a deliberate " tackle" to cause as much pain as was experienced at the time-----such as in two women who were defending themselves against each other.
-
I wonder when the resident Vanezis worshippers are going to explain how he missed the presence of the earring and why he didn’t mention it, or the injury caused when it was ripped off the right ear?
Il explain it now. He "missed" all the things you mention because they simply never existed in the first place.
-
Well, there obviously was a reason. It may only become clear after he is charged with perjury, which could be a few years off.
I suspect that he was persuaded by Ainsley that it would be good for his career if he only mentioned things that were helpful to the prosecution and, indeed, Vanezis was rewarded handsomely over the years for being Ainsley's stooge.
Do you not find it strange that Vanezis supposedly did not make a detailed statement about the post-mortems until 30 September, nearly two months after the event? How convenient that details supporting the prosecution of Jeremy are contained in the statement but nothing about numerous other wounds?
I suspect that somewhere in Taff Jones investigation documentation there may well be an earlier version of Vanezis' witness statement in which he does discuss the numerous defensive injuries to all three adult victims.
I was not thinking of you specifically when I made reference to Vanezis worshippers, I had in mind someone who trumpets his so-called professional expertise regularly.
::)
JB will be out by Christmas 2017. Put money on it.👍
-
::)
JB will be out by Christmas 2017. Put money on it.👍
Most of JB's supporters have expressed over exuberant optimism at some point. McKay did in 2012. It's born in part from an urge to overturn wrongdoing.
-
Il explain it now. He "missed" all the things you mention because they simply never existed in the first place.
You might as well post what alternative explanation you have for the earring, so that we can explore it.
As for the wounds - how did Sheila manage to kill two adults in a confined space with furniture, including using the rifle as a club, without obtaining any marks on her own person in the process?
-
I'm quite happy to say that it looks like a snagged earring to me but I have yet to see any evidence of a damaged earlobe which I would imagine would bleed quite a lot so reserve my judgement about the significance of this.
With respect to Bill and Roch, you can't expect us to believe you have won the lottery when you only reveal one number, we need to see all six, especially with JB's long history of grandiose claims and bare faced lies.
-
I'm quite happy to say that it looks like a snagged earring to me but I have yet to see any evidence of a damaged earlobe which I would imagine would bleed quite a lot so reserve my judgement about the significance of this.
With respect to Bill and Roch, you can't expect us to believe you have won the lottery when you only reveal one number, we need to see all six, especially with JB's long history of grandiose claims and bare faced lies.
AD, you may take it from me that it doesn't just bleed. Gravity takes over and, drip by copious drip, it BLEEDS! If she'd turned her head sharply, the blood would have flicked on the person nearest to her. A snagged earring says nothing more than that she MAY have struggled with someone. It doesn't say she did, and it doesn't say, with whom.
-
You might as well post what alternative explanation you have for the earring, so that we can explore it.
To me, it just seems like an area on of the nightdress that is not bloodstained. Hence the entire thing is over shadowed in other photos.
(https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/PRI_221416097.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=108%2C135)
As for the wounds - how did Sheila manage to kill two adults in a confined space with furniture, including using the rifle as a club, without obtaining any marks on her own person in the process?
I have already explained this to you. I am not going over it again.
-
I'm quite happy to say that it looks like a snagged earring to me but I have yet to see any evidence of a damaged earlobe which I would imagine would bleed quite a lot so reserve my judgement about the significance of this.
With respect to Bill and Roch, you can't expect us to believe you have won the lottery when you only reveal one number, we need to see all six, especially with JB's long history of grandiose claims and bare faced lies.
AD can you list all the " grandiose claims and bare-faced lies " that you claim JB was/ is capable of ?
-
To me, it just seems like an area on of the nightdress that is not bloodstained. Hence the entire thing is over shadowed in other photos.
LOL WALOB
The object shines when a flash photograph is taken from the side or rear of SC but does not appear visible in photos taken from her feet up towards the face. That is why in some pictures it just appears as a black blob as there is no reflected light.
Now, with reference to your tedious and juvenile references to the discovery of Sheila's 28 wounds in 2016, it was originally planned to refer this to the CCRC then, which could have resulted in his release in 2017. It was subsequently Jeremy's decision to delay referring to the CCRC in 2016 as so much new evidence was being uncovered and he wanted it all considered at once.
Those who have seen the evidence of the 70 unreported wounds to the adults all agree that it is sufficient on its own to secure his release, as will be seen in due course.
Maybe you could grow up and cease making reference to my confidence that he could be released in 2017? It would be an adult way of going forward. Or, does it give your kiddie ego a thrill every time you mention it?
-
LOL WALOB
The object shines when a flash photograph is taken from the side or rear of SC but does not appear visible in photos taken from her feet up towards the face. That is why in some pictures it just appears as a black blob as there is no reflected light.
Now, with reference to your tedious and juvenile references to the discovery of Sheila's 28 wounds in 2016, it was originally planned to refer this to the CCRC then, which could have resulted in his release in 2017. It was subsequently Jeremy's decision to delay referring to the CCRC in 2016 as so much new evidence was being uncovered and he wanted it all considered at once.
Those who have seen the evidence of the 70 unreported wounds to the adults all agree that it is sufficient on its own to secure his release, as will be seen in due course.
Maybe you could grow up and cease making reference to my confidence that he could be released in 2017? It would be an adult way of going forward. Or, does it give your kiddie ego a thrill every time you mention it?
you are crazy
-
AD can you list all the " grandiose claims and bare-faced lies " that you claim JB was/ is capable of ?
Why would he bother lying when he is where he is ? JB wishes to come out of there, not stay in, he's not that stupid to realise that by lying his length of stay increases.
It was in the best interests of others to do the lying and bragging about their grandiose living habits-----while asking Nevill for loans and running to granny cap in hand. Little things the jury knew nothing about.
-
AD can you list all the " grandiose claims and bare-faced lies " that you claim JB was/ is capable of ?
See the CT website.
-
LOL WALOB
The object shines when a flash photograph is taken from the side or rear of SC but does not appear visible in photos taken from her feet up towards the face. That is why in some pictures it just appears as a black blob as there is no reflected light.
Now, with reference to your tedious and juvenile references to the discovery of Sheila's 28 wounds in 2016, it was originally planned to refer this to the CCRC then, which could have resulted in his release in 2017. It was subsequently Jeremy's decision to delay referring to the CCRC in 2016 as so much new evidence was being uncovered and he wanted it all considered at once.
Those who have seen the evidence of the 70 unreported wounds to the adults all agree that it is sufficient on its own to secure his release, as will be seen in due course.
Maybe you could grow up and cease making reference to my confidence that he could be released in 2017? It would be an adult way of going forward. Or, does it give your kiddie ego a thrill every time you mention it?
Bill, it may have been better to have kept that to yourself. If someone told you a convicted killer, claiming innocence, elected to stay in prison for several more years, because, despite that there was evidence to release him, he believed there was more to come, I rather imagine you'd be thinking, if not, saying, what several of us are thinking/saying, now.
-
To me, it just seems like an area on of the nightdress that is not bloodstained. Hence the entire thing is over shadowed in other photos.
(https://metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/PRI_221416097.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=108%2C135)
I have already explained this to you. I am not going over it again.
An area of the nightdress that isn't bloodstained? Yet it is not the same colour as the rest of the unstained nightdress? It also happens have what appear to be fairly uniform black lines on it?
Fair play to Armchair who has displayed honesty and an open mind.
As for the wounds, you have never provided an explanation, other than saying 'transferred' and 'gunshot wounds'. That just doesn't cut the mustard David.
-
AD, you may take it from me that it doesn't just bleed. Gravity takes over and, drip by copious drip, it BLEEDS! If she'd turned her head sharply, the blood would have flicked on the person nearest to her. A snagged earring says nothing more than that she MAY have struggled with someone. It doesn't say she did, and it doesn't say, with whom.
Yes and no. A snagged earring is just a snagged earring. A snagged earring and a damaged ear would suggest a struggle but not with whom, unless the purple doo dah on the kitchen floor can be reconciled with the earring.
However, if evidence of a damaged ear exists, it suggests some very poor police and pathology work that needs some explanation.
-
Bill, it may have been better to have kept that to yourself. If someone told you a convicted killer, claiming innocence, elected to stay in prison for several more years, because, despite that there was evidence to release him, he believed there was more to come, I rather imagine you'd be thinking, if not, saying, what several of us are thinking/saying, now.
He could have been released on a legal technicality years ago. It is his choice to remain in prison until he is completely exonerated. I admire him for that, and that he will go for the whole lot that caused him to be falsely convicted.
-
Bill, it may have been better to have kept that to yourself. If someone told you a convicted killer, claiming innocence, elected to stay in prison for several more years, because, despite that there was evidence to release him, he believed there was more to come, I rather imagine you'd be thinking, if not, saying, what several of us are thinking/saying, now.
Exactly. He can apply to the CCRC as many times as he likes.
-
AD, you may take it from me that it doesn't just bleed. Gravity takes over and, drip by copious drip, it BLEEDS! If she'd turned her head sharply, the blood would have flicked on the person nearest to her. A snagged earring says nothing more than that she MAY have struggled with someone. It doesn't say she did, and it doesn't say, with whom.
Well you can guarantee it wasn't JB...
Firstly, he had no marks on him (which Bill and I would argue completely distinguishes him from Sheila, June and Nevill).
Secondly, the prosecution had the option of choosing to use the earring to suggest a struggle with JB. Instead, they thought 'discretion was the better part of valour'; erased the earring from records; and ran with a 'Sheila struggled with nobody' scenario.
-
Well you can guarantee it wasn't JB...
Firstly, he had no marks on him (which Bill and I would argue completely distinguishes him from Sheila, June and Nevill).
Secondly, the prosecution had the option of choosing to use the earring to suggest a struggle with JB. Instead, they thought 'discretion was the better part of valour'; erased the earring from records; and ran with a 'Sheila struggled with nobody' scenario.
Now how can you be certain she wasn't in a struggle with JB? You claim there were no marks on him. He wasn't examined for such because he wasn't a suspect. So in a situation in which JB is in some form of protective clothing -NO! I'm not going down the wetsuit route!!- and Sheila was wearing a flimsy nightdress, it can be reasonably expected that JB wouldn't have been marked.
-
Now how can you be certain she wasn't in a struggle with JB? You claim there were no marks on him. He wasn't examined for such because he wasn't a suspect. So in a situation in which JB is in some form of protective clothing -NO! I'm not going down the wetsuit route!!- and Sheila was wearing a flimsy nightdress, it can be reasonably expected that JB wouldn't have been marked.
I think he was observed for any obvious marks.
The prosecution had the opportunity to argue that a struggle took place between Sheila and Jeremy. They probably felt that if they used the earring to advance that argument, it would open up a can of worms.
-
Now how can you be certain she wasn't in a struggle with JB? You claim there were no marks on him. He wasn't examined for such because he wasn't a suspect. So in a situation in which JB is in some form of protective clothing -NO! I'm not going down the wetsuit route!!- and Sheila was wearing a flimsy nightdress, it can be reasonably expected that JB wouldn't have been marked.
So do you think that Sheila wasn't marked while wearing " a flimsy nightdress " Jane ?
-
So do you think that Sheila wasn't marked while wearing " a flimsy nightdress " Jane ?
She'd have had a very torn ear if an earring had been ripped out, Lookout.
-
She'd have had a very torn ear if an earring had been ripped out, Lookout.
Just an ear ? :)
-
Well you can guarantee it wasn't JB...
Firstly, he had no marks on him (which Bill and I would argue completely distinguishes him from Sheila, June and Nevill).
Secondly, the prosecution had the option of choosing to use the earring to suggest a struggle with JB. Instead, they thought 'discretion was the better part of valour'; erased the earring from records; and ran with a 'Sheila struggled with nobody' scenario.
Hi Roch,hope your well today,very interesting topic that yourself and cutie have started.If i may give my opinion,it clearly looks like a shiny bell shaped earring or trinket of some sort to me.Now,yourself and AD seem to be wondering why the earring is visible in some photos in the Archive,but not in others.Surely that is because you are looking at two different sets of photos.One set before the rifle was removed from Sheilas body,and one set when the rifle was replaced on the body.Once you know where to look for the esrring ,you can see the white dot on all the photos with the barrel of the rifle in LINE with the neck key chain round Sheilas neck.Once the rifle is REPLACED and the barrel is about four inches up PAST the neck chain,the earring is gone.Either it must have been removed,fallen off ,or is hidden in the folds of the nightdress.Does this make sense to you Roch.
-
Hi Roch,hope your well today,very interesting topic that yourself and cutie have started.If i may give my opinion,it clearly looks like a shiny bell shaped earring or trinket of some sort to me.Now,yourself and AD seem to be wondering why the earring is visible in some photos in the Archive,but not in others.Surely that is because you are looking at two different sets of photos.One set before the rifle was removed from Sheilas body,and one set when the rifle was replaced on the body.Once you know where to look for the esrring ,you can see the white dot on all the photos with the barrel of the rifle in LINE with the neck key chain round Sheilas neck.Once the rifle is REPLACED and the barrel is about four inches up PAST the neck chain,the earring is gone.Either it must have been removed,fallen off ,or is hidden in the folds of the nightdress.Does this make sense to you Roch.
Snow - Thank you very much for scrutinising the relevant photos and advising us of this possibility. Glad you are around to delve further!
-
He could have been released on a legal technicality years ago. It is his choice to remain in prison until he is completely exonerated. I admire him for that, and that he will go for the whole lot that caused him to be falsely convicted.
Of course, the other side of the coin is that he's aware it won't happen. MUCH better to take the high moral ground..............especially if his ultimate intention is to bring down the government, the judiciary and the police, as well as bankrupting family members who had nothing to do with the incident he was convicted of.
-
What set JB with a further foot-hold on the case were notes that had inadvertently been sent to him when he was at Full Sutton and had made a request for documents. These " police notes " had been alongside those which he'd requested and which, besides others, were held under the PII instruction where, it had stated, were others. This, I believe was in 2017.
It's these " police notes " that held JB's interest as the information contained was what he'd wanted. This is with CCRC in the hope that an appeal will now follow, then exoneration of this dreadful crime.
-
Of course, the other side of the coin is that he's aware it won't happen. MUCH better to take the high moral ground..............especially if his ultimate intention is to bring down the government, the judiciary and the police, as well as bankrupting family members who had nothing to do with the incident he was convicted of.
[/size][/color][/b]
Absolutely clueless Jane get a grip
-
[/size][/color][/b]
Absolutely clueless Jane get a grip
Whatever!!!
-
Hi Roch,hope your well today,very interesting topic that yourself and cutie have started.If i may give my opinion,it clearly looks like a shiny bell shaped earring or trinket of some sort to me.Now,yourself and AD seem to be wondering why the earring is visible in some photos in the Archive,but not in others.Surely that is because you are looking at two different sets of photos.One set before the rifle was removed from Sheilas body,and one set when the rifle was replaced on the body.Once you know where to look for the esrring ,you can see the white dot on all the photos with the barrel of the rifle in LINE with the neck key chain round Sheilas neck.Once the rifle is REPLACED and the barrel is about four inches up PAST the neck chain,the earring is gone.Either it must have been removed,fallen off ,or is hidden in the folds of the nightdress.Does this make sense to you Roch.
Doctored.
-
Doctored.
Given the vast array of such that we've had presented to us, as authentic, cynicism isn't surprising.
-
Given the vast array of such that we've had presented to us, as authentic, cynicism isn't surprising.
Jane, think about it.
Is Adam suggesting that an oval grey shape of poor definition was doctored on to Mike Tesko's photographs of photographs that he took circa 2004, or is Adam claiming that about twelve years later clearer images were doctored in the exact same area as Mike's photos, in order to show an earring?
What would be the point of doctoring images for which the negatives are held at Essex Police photography dept?
What we are witnessing from Adam, Cambridge and David can be described as 'sour grapes'.
-
Jane, think about it.
Is Adam suggesting that an oval grey shape of poor definition was doctored on to Mike Tesko's photographs of photographs that he took circa 2004, or is Adam claiming that about twelve years later clearer images were doctored in the exact same area as Mike's photos, in order to show an earring?
What would be the point of doctoring images for which the negatives are held at Essex Police photography dept?
What we are witnessing from Adam, Cambridge and David can be described as 'sour grapes'.
Roch, I was generalizing. I've been taken in by some. Others have quite clearly been fake. Given that I believe, emphatically, that Sheila wasn't the culprit, I'm certain you understand my caution.
-
Roch, I was generalizing. I've been taken in by some. Others have quite clearly been fake. Given that I believe, emphatically, that Sheila wasn't the culprit, I'm certain you understand my caution.
Yes of course. I think claims have been made that were supposition or arm chancing (quite literally on one occasion). For example, in the back kitchen area, Mike suggested a rifle butt had caused an imprint in something on the floor. Hartley claimed it was in fact merely the way sunlight fell on the floor. Mike wasn't being dishonest. He was being open minded and he was trying to cause trouble for those he sees as being responsible for telling lies to get somebody convicted.
Even the claim that Sheila's wet blood photo was doctored? Was it really? And was the flash photography the only reason it looked wet? Sometimes the truth is somewhere in the middle. So for example, she died much later than everyone else, but the flash photography also aided in making the blood look wet. This idea that JB's team actually doctor photos seems far fetched. As already explained, the cops have the negatives.
-
Yes of course. I think claims have been made that were supposition or arm chancing (quite literally on one occasion). For example, in the back kitchen area, Mike suggested a rifle butt had caused an imprint in something on the floor. Hartley claimed it was in fact merely the way sunlight fell on the floor. Mike wasn't being dishonest. He was being open minded and he was trying to cause trouble for those he sees as being responsible for telling lies to get somebody convicted.
Even the claim that Sheila's wet blood photo was doctored? Was it really? And was the flash photography the only reason it looked wet? Sometimes the truth is somewhere in the middle. So for example, she died much later than everyone else, but the flash photography also aided in making the blood look wet. This idea that JB's team actually doctor photos seems far fetched. As already explained, the cops have the negatives.
-
Roch. The photo you sent me a while back has been edited to make this area of the dress appear brighter than it should be. And the beads have been added in. :-[
-
Roch. The photo you sent me a while back has been edited to make this area of the dress appear brighter than it should be. And the beads have been added in. :-[
You must have missed this post David...
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11105.msg514974.html#msg514974
-
You must have missed this post David...
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11105.msg514974.html#msg514974
The photo has been edited. That particular area of the photo has been brightened up to mislead.
-
The photo has been edited. That particular area of the photo has been brightened up to mislead.
You've just completely ignored my post in reply to yours.
-
Doctored.
You cannot doctor negatives Adam.
-
You cannot doctor negatives Adam.
But you can doctor JPEGs.
If it was an earring, it would be as obvious as all the other jewellery Sheila is wearing. It won't appear as dress fabric with minor voids of bloods that need to be distorted with photoediting by someone who claims to be able to see 70 wounds nobody else can see. ::)
-
But you can doctor JPEGs.
If it was an earring, it would be as obvious as all the other jewellery Sheila is wearing. It won't appear as dress fabric with minor voids of bloods that need to be distorted with photoediting by someone who claims to be able to see 70 wounds nobody else can see. ::)
Hopefully the negatives are still in existence then this can easily be verified? I don't think anyone would doctor JPEGs if the original negatives were available?
-
Hopefully the negatives are still in existence then this can easily be verified? I don't think anyone would doctor JPEGs if the original negatives were available?
He is exagarating the issue because he cannot accept the existence of the object in question. In the post I put up, you can clearly see that the object has a different appearance in accordance with whichever filter is applied. The object however is still present, whichever filter is applied.
-
If it is an earing lying loose on Sheila's nightdress, then it follows that it was dislodged or ripped off in some way or other, in or around the location she was found in.
The 'earing' couldn't have come off in any fight or struggle she may have had in the kitchen with Nevill, as it would've fallen to the floor.
-
If it is an earing lying loose on Sheila's nightdress, then it follows that it was dislodged or ripped off in some way or other, in or around the location she was found in.
The 'earing' couldn't have come off in any fight or struggle she may have had in the kitchen with Nevill, as it would've fallen to the floor.
I can only add that, had it been a precious earring, under any other circumstances she could have considered herself very lucky to have had it become attached, as opposed, like mine, to being lost, none, I hasten to add, as the result of a struggle. The question has to be put, surely violent movement would have dislodged it?
-
Hopefully the negatives are still in existence then this can easily be verified? I don't think anyone would doctor JPEGs if the original negatives were available?
The claim has come from somebody who has already admitted to using software to edit photos so he can "see through" blood and find cuts underneath, something that is completely impossible. The same person who claims he cannot reveal much because "forces of darkness" are watching him.
There is a reason why a conspiratard is the only person who takes Bill seriously.
-
The claim has come from somebody who has already admitted to using software to edit photos so he can "see through" blood and find cuts underneath, something that is completely impossible. The same person who claims he cannot reveal much because "forces of darkness" are watching him.
There is a reason why a conspiratard is the only person who takes Bill seriously.
It's probably more likely that Sheila both obtained injuries to herself and caused injuries to others, during a horrific and tragic incident. During the prosecution of Jeremy Bamber, all of this had to be either hidden or explained away. The real mystery in this case, is exactly what happened in between these two points.
-
The claim has come from somebody who has already admitted to using software to edit photos so he can "see through" blood and find cuts underneath, something that is completely impossible. The same person who claims he cannot reveal much because "forces of darkness" are watching him.
There is a reason why a conspiratard is the only person who takes Bill seriously.
Hi Dave how are you tonight.I see what your saying,but what do you say about the object or otherwise disappearing once the rifle has been adjusted,ie image MS12.In this photo the earring ,white patch,whatever you want to call it is gone.But if you look closely at this image,the white patch seems to have moved up nearer the top of her shoulder.at the edge of the collar.What i mean is,why did it disappear once the rifle was re-adjusted and possibly appear somewhere else,no matter what it is.
-
Hopefully the negatives are still in existence then this can easily be verified? I don't think anyone would doctor JPEGs if the original negatives were available?
Precisely. What would be the point of doctoring images that are going to the CCRC where police forensic scientists will be able to examine them? The only manipulation to the images has been to correct the underexposure of some of DC Bird's negatives. Apparently, he was inexperienced. I read somewhere that WHF was only the second time he had photographed a crime scene. Some of his photos are underexposed and slightly out of focus. By lightening some of the images and sharpening the focus extra detail becomes apparent. It is absurd (and desperate) to suggest that any falsification of images has taken place.
-
Let's also not forget that photographic technology in forensic areas has vastly improved since 1985 !
Photo's that are available will have been scrutinised to the last detail, hence why " supposedly unseen" pics
will bear no resemblance to those which were taken at the scene.
The CCRC, in the past, wouldn't have seen the finer results from previous submissions.
-
Personally I find David's argument unreasonable. When police were hunting the bus stop killer, they honed in on a white van parked next to Twickenham Green. They did everything they could improve the image in order to read the number plate but just couldn't get it clear enough. If they had got the image clear enough to read, would David say 'aah, you can't use that number plate because you created it by trying to make the image clearer'?
-
You are making a fool of yourself. The snagged earring is there for all to see. I respectfully suggest that you would be better off displaying some humility and by conceding it is present in the images.
It's a shot across the bows - because there is plenty other pathological evidence that me and Bill have also cited, which also exists.
Humility? I'm not the one accusing two highly qualified pathologists of long experience over decades of incompetence and/or wrongdoing. Both have unblemished careers and yet you expect me to believe that in this case both overlooked damage to Sheila's lobe and various wounds on all adult victims. ::)
You conveniently overlook that a convicted fraudster had access to the files and images by the name of Giovanni De Stefano. Firstly those making the claims need expert opinion to establish the images are authentic and undoctored. Secondly expert forensic pathological opinion is needed to establish the claims.
Why would Prof Vanezis note Sheila's stud earrings, nicotine stains to fingers, old scars, stretch marks and the fact she was menstruating and had an iud fitted, but overlook damage to her earlobe (and various wounds on all adult victims)? Why would Prof Knight for the defence also overlook? If the pair of them were so incompetent, or worse, then why has nothing come to light with the thousands of other cases they've presided over?
-
But Roch and Bill AREN'T WRONG about this finding as I can also verify that !! I sincerely hope that in due course that everyone will recognise that it was a deliberate " tackle" to cause as much pain as was experienced at the time-----such as in two women who were defending themselves against each other.
No of course they're not ::) They know far more than Prof's Vanezis and Knight ::)
You conveniently overlook that a convicted fraudster had access to the files and images by the name of Giovanni De Stefano. Firstly those making the claims need expert opinion to establish the images are authentic and undoctored. Secondly expert forensic pathological opinion is needed to establish the claims.
Why would Prof Vanezis note Sheila's stud earrings, nicotine stains to fingers, old scars, stretch marks and the fact she was menstruating and had an iud fitted, but overlook damage to her earlobe (and various wounds on all adult victims)? Why would Prof Knight for the defence also overlook? If the pair of them were so incompetent, or worse, then why has nothing come to light with the thousands of other cases they've presided over?
You're always telling the forum that you're a great judge of character and never hoodwinked and yet you seem only too happy to rely on images that have been in the hands of a convicted fraudster!?
-
No of course they're not ::) They know far more than Prof's Vanezis and Knight ::)
You conveniently overlook that a convicted fraudster had access to the files and images by the name of Giovanni De Stefano. Firstly those making the claims need expert opinion to establish the images are authentic and undoctored. Secondly expert forensic pathological opinion is needed to establish the claims.
Why would Prof Vanezis note Sheila's stud earrings, nicotine stains to fingers, old scars, stretch marks and the fact she was menstruating and had an iud fitted, but overlook damage to her earlobe (and various wounds on all adult victims)? Why would Prof Knight for the defence also overlook? If the pair of them were so incompetent, or worse, then why has nothing come to light with the thousands of other cases they've presided over?
You're always telling the forum that you're a great judge of character and never hoodwinked and yet you seem only too happy to rely on images that have been in the hands of a convicted fraudster!?
I've NEVER followed Giovanni de Stefano whatsoever. How dare you !!
-
You conveniently overlook that a convicted fraudster had access to the files and images by the name of Giovanni De Stefano.
De Stafano left the scene long before the images were sold to the CT. He had no access to them.
-
I've NEVER followed Giovanni de Stefano whatsoever. How dare you !!
Unlike yourself there are very few legal subjects that I WOULD trust !
-
I've NEVER followed Giovanni de Stefano whatsoever. How dare you !!
But that's the whole point you might well be following him since the Bamber case files were in his possession at one time.
-
De Stafano left the scene long before the images were sold to the CT. He had no access to them.
The Bamber case files are some 36 years old. During which they've been all round the houses and in the hands of known criminals. Anything and everything should be treated with extreme caution especially claims by Bamber and his supporters which are at odds with opinion from two highly qualified forensic pathologists of long experience with unblemished careers.
-
But that's the whole point you might well be following him since the Bamber case files were in his possession at one time.
I never did follow him. Why are you saying these things ? My interests initially were from outside of this forum with those who were in the know----who had the correct information which is why I'm 100% certain that JB is innocent.
-
The Bamber case files are some 36 years old. During which they've been all round the houses and in the hands of known criminals. Anything and everything should be treated with extreme caution especially claims by Bamber and his supporters which are at odds with opinion from two highly qualified forensic pathologists of long experience with unblemished careers.
Spec-savers must have made a mistake with you, giving you rose-tinted ones.
-
I never did follow him. Why are you saying these things ? My interests initially were from outside of this forum with those who were in the know----who had the correct information which is why I'm 100% certain that JB is innocent.
I am saying these things because the Bamber case files are some 36 years old and have been all round the houses including in the hands of known criminals.
The fact you're 100% certain Bamber is innocent is neither here nor there if you don't have the evidence capable of influencing the CCRC/CoA to the extent the latter quash the conviction.
Spec-savers must have made a mistake with you, giving you rose-tinted ones.
Your time would be better spent understanding the case against Bamber instead of sarky comments aimed at me.
-
I am saying these things because the Bamber case files are some 36 years old and have been all round the houses including in the hands of known criminals.
The fact you're 100% certain Bamber is innocent is neither here nor there if you don't have the evidence capable of influencing the CCRC/CoA to the extent the latter quash the conviction.
Your time would be better spent understanding the case against Bamber instead of sarky comments aimed at me.
What about your own " sarky " comments about me following the like of Giovanni Stefano ? Or is it only you who is allowed to do the insulting ?
-
Humility? I'm not the one accusing two highly qualified pathologists of long experience over decades of incompetence and/or wrongdoing. Both have unblemished careers and yet you expect me to believe that in this case both overlooked damage to Sheila's lobe and various wounds on all adult victims. ::)
You conveniently overlook that a convicted fraudster had access to the files and images by the name of Giovanni De Stefano. Firstly those making the claims need expert opinion to establish the images are authentic and undoctored. Secondly expert forensic pathological opinion is needed to establish the claims.
Why would Prof Vanezis note Sheila's stud earrings, nicotine stains to fingers, old scars, stretch marks and the fact she was menstruating and had an iud fitted, but overlook damage to her earlobe (and various wounds on all adult victims)? Why would Prof Knight for the defence also overlook? If the pair of them were so incompetent, or worse, then why has nothing come to light with the thousands of other cases they've presided over?
Pathological details which were irrelevant to whether or not she carried out the killings were not screened out. So there was no need for nicotined fingers to be missing. Nor stretch marks etc etc.
You cannot possibly know whether both had unblemished careers. QC recently showed that Knight was a pathologist for the prosecution in an MOJ (not that I am saying Knight did anything wrong - I am not familiar with the case).
You were recently shown that Vanezis was involved in a controversial Malaysian case, for the authorities. He was also involved in a UK wrongful conviction. Unless you have canvassed a sample of pathologists regarding PV's professional reputation, I doubt you can trumpet his rep here.
I'm afraid that the discovery of the pendant earring snagged on her nightdress is a case of sour grapes for you. It throws up all sorts of questions that you cannot allow your self to encompass.
-
I am saying these things because the Bamber case files are some 36 years old and have been all round the houses including in the hands of known criminals.
The fact you're 100% certain Bamber is innocent is neither here nor there if you don't have the evidence capable of influencing the CCRC/CoA to the extent the latter quash the conviction.
Your time would be better spent understanding the case against Bamber instead of sarky comments aimed at me.
Pity you didn't have more understanding of the case than you profess to have !!
-
In the photo attached, the alleged earring appears as the same colour as the nightdress. Will Roch and Bill now claim the other half dozen or so blood voids by Sheila breast are earrings also?
-
Blood isn't like water that finds its own level, it is not as free-flowing as it's a thicker consistency .
-
In the photo attached, the alleged earring appears as the same colour as the nightdress. Will Roch and Bill now claim the other half dozen or so blood voids by Sheila breast are earrings also?
No. For simple reason that there isn't. You're being silly.
-
Only an idiot would make anything of that pic !
-
From the crime scene photos, you can see blood running down Sheila's cheeks and then onto her ears. That explains the "wound" Bill is seeing on her earlobe.
-
From the crime scene photos, you can see blood running down Sheila's cheeks and then onto her ears. That explains the "wound" Bill is seeing on her earlobe.
No. Wrong again. This is not what is being claimed.
-
In this photo attached, notice how all the metallic materials are gleaming. The rifle barrel, Sheila's neckless and ring. Yet the area of the alleged earring.... Nothing!
-
In this photo attached, notice how all the metallic materials are gleaming. The rifle barrel, Sheila's neckless and ring. Yet the area of the alleged earring.... Nothing!
See Snow 66 posts.
-
In this photo attached, notice how all the metallic materials are gleaming. The rifle barrel, Sheila's neckless and ring. Yet the area of the alleged earring.... Nothing!
You’re correct David, but as Snow pointed out the rifle itself has moved considerably here, the end of the barrel is well beyond the necklace where as in other photos it was only at the necklace level, so the two photos can’t be directly compared as if they are both genuine then the body has been tampered with.
I agree that in the photo you have shown the pendent doesn’t appear to exist - however neither does the “mark” that can be seen in the other pictures if it’s not a pendant, which does suggest something has either been moved/dropped/lost or blood has now covered that area if it was only an unmarked patch, which would raise its own complications at that stage!
-
You’re correct David, but as Snow pointed out the rifle itself has moved considerably here, the end of the barrel is well beyond the necklace where as in other photos it was only at the necklace level, so the two photos can’t be directly compared as if they are both genuine then the body has been tampered with.
I agree that in the photo you have shown the pendent doesn’t appear to exist - however neither does the “mark” that can be seen in the other pictures if it’s not a pendant, which does suggest something has either been moved/dropped/lost or blood has now covered that area if it was only an unmarked patch, which would raise its own complications at that stage!
The "mark" is simply a void in the bloodstain and thus has been overshadowed by the fabric and is not large or bright enough to become rendered in the photo.
The rifle has not been moved. Its just a parallax caused by different angles of the photos being taken.
-
The "mark" is simply a void in the bloodstain and thus has been overshadowed by the fabric and is not large or bright enough to become rendered in the photo.
I can see the logic David, but I’m afraid I don’t agree, the “mark” can be seen in every other photo before the gun moves. Some from the same angle, some from other angles and some from further away. If it is a void it’s fairly distinct once you look for it and from a photo this close you’d see some evidence of it, in this photo there’s nothing there at all and no evidence of shadow where it would be, whatever caused that mark is no longer there.
-
I can see the logic David, but I’m afraid I don’t agree, the “mark” can be seen in every other photo before the gun moves. Some from the same angle, some from other angles and some from further away. If it is a void it’s fairly distinct once you look for it and from a photo this close you’d see some evidence of it, in this photo there’s nothing there at all and no evidence of shadow where it would be, whatever caused that mark is no longer there.
The gun has not been moved.
-
The "mark" is simply a void in the bloodstain and thus has been overshadowed by the fabric and is not large or bright enough to become rendered in the photo.
The rifle has not been moved. Its just a parallax caused by different angles of the photos being taken.
I think you're on a hiding to nothing here David. Lone voices are sometimes commendable - but in this case, the differences in the angles of photography are insufficient enough to cause such a difference in the finishing position of the barrel end.
Three guilters have already accepted the presence of the earring. I think the defence may also be on a hiding to nothing - because the CCRC have already previously advised that they regard sworn statements that the rifle wasn't moved as being stronger evidence than photography showing that it was indeed moved.
-
The gun has not been moved.
It clearly has - look at where the end of the barrel is in relation to the necklace then look at it in other photos, or are you suggesting that some of the photos are not genuine? The gun is several inches further up Sheila’s body. I unfortunately can’t copy the photos from here to do a comparison in a single post but I’m sure someone else could
-
It clearly has - look at where the end of the barrel is in relation to the necklace then look at it in other photos, or are you suggesting that some of the photos are not genuine? The gun is several inches further up Sheila’s body. I unfortunately can’t copy the photos from here to do a comparison in a single post but I’m sure someone else could
The gun is resting on Sheilas breasts/torso. Sheila's neckless is several inches below the barrel, thus the photo taken from above make it seem in a different location from the photo taken from the side. This is known as a parellax effect
https://www.quora.com/What-is-meant-by-parallax (https://www.quora.com/What-is-meant-by-parallax)
-
In this photo attached, notice how all the metallic materials are gleaming. The rifle barrel, Sheila's neckless and ring. Yet the area of the alleged earring.... Nothing!
FOR GODS SAKE Dave,THAT is what i have been trying to tell you.THAT photo was taken once the rifle had been re-positioned,when the barrel of the rifle ie 3 or 4 inches up past the neck chain.All the photos taken with the barrel IN LINE with the key chain show the earring.Hence the earring must have been removed ,fallen off,moved position or be hidden in the folds of the nightdress.THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF PHOTOS IN THE ARCHIVES.
-
David, please look at the these. You cannot possibly be hink this is 'parallax'.
The rifle barrel is virtually resting in her throat in two images.
-
FOR GODS SAKE Dave,THAT is what i have been trying to tell you.THAT photo was taken once the rifle had been re-positioned,when the barrel of the rifle ie 3 or 4 inches up past the neck chain.All the photos taken with the barrel IN LINE with the key chain show the earring.Hence the earring must have been removed ,fallen off,moved position or be hidden in the folds of the nightdress.THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF PHOTOS IN THE ARCHIVES.
No it has not. A while ago I compared both photos using photogrammetry software. Lining up all the reference points (mostly the creases in Sheila's nightdress). The conclusion being it has not been moved. Everything lines up the same.
-
The "mark" is simply a void in the bloodstain and thus has been overshadowed by the fabric and is not large or bright enough to become rendered in the photo.
The rifle has not been moved. Its just a parallax caused by different angles of the photos being taken.
Nonsense Dave ,the rifle has clearly been moved.
-
Look at the mole underneath her chin. Look how close it is to her chin. Use that as a reference point re the end of the barrel.
-
Look at the mole underneath her chin. Look how close it is to her chin. Use that as a reference point re the end of the barrel.
You cannot use one reference point you need several across the entire photo.
-
Nonsense Dave ,the rifle has clearly been moved.
It has not. :))
-
You cannot use one reference point you need several across the entire photo.
And you (purport to) have done so using the Bible and her arm?? But not the rifle.
-
Her left arm has been moved too.
-
And you (purport to) have done so using the Bible and her arm?? But not the rifle.
The bible is a rectangular and straight object making it ideal to set the grid. I have done the same with the bed and bedside cabinet. The primary refence points I am using is the creases and folds in the nightdress going along the rifle.
-
Her left arm has been moved too.
We know that. Di Cook confirms this at trial.
-
Her left arm has been moved too.
I keep thinking that as well Lookout, but I’m not certain that that isn’t Paralax. I need to look in more detail when I have time, but something at first glance does look different there around the angle of her forefinger
-
We know that. Di Cook confirms this at trial.
That was her right arm David, the one on the gun. The one (I believe) Lookout is referring to is her other arm
-
The bible is a rectangular and straight object making it ideal to set the grid. The primary refence points I am using is the creases and folds in the nightdress going along the rifle.
Sorry mate but you're undermining your claims as far as I can see.
One of three things happened, when the rifle was moved. Bear in mind that the drop earring sits partially exposed, within a bloodied fold of the nightdress.
1 A police officer has removed the drop earring.
2 The drop earring has moved and is now fully covered by the bloodied fold
3 The drop earring has become dislodged from her person and / or as a result of dislodgement, is no longer visible.
It's not brain surgery.
-
Sorry mate but you're undermining your claims as far as I can see.
One of three things happened, when the rifle was moved. Bear in mind that the drop earring sits partially exposed, within a bloodied fold of the nightdress.
1 A police officer has removed the drop earring.
2 The drop earring has moved and is now fully covered by the bloodied fold
3 The drop earring has become dislodged from her person and / or as a result of dislodgement, is no longer visible.
It's not brain surgery.
There is no earring. Its a void in the bloodstain that Bill has brightened :))
-
There is no earring. Its a void in the bloodstain that Bill has brightened :))
Are you saying fresh blood filled in the void Dave.
-
There is no earring. Its a void in the bloodstain that Bill has brightened :))
You have already been signposted to a post which shows the area with several different filters. In each one, the drop earring is visible, regardless of the filter. The brightening merely makes it more noticeable than before.
-
David, please look at the these. You cannot possibly be hink this is 'parallax'.
The rifle barrel is virtually resting in her throat in two images.
If it was resting on her throat how do you explain this rifle shaped shadow on her through underneath it? :))
-
If it was resting on her throat how do you explain this rifle shaped shadow on her through underneath it? :))
That is from a photo that shows the rifle in the lower position.
-
You have already been signposted to a post which shows the area with several different filters. In each one, the drop earring is visible, regardless of the filter. The brightening merely makes it more noticeable than before.
Its a void in the bloodstain. The photo has been manipulated to make it appear brighter than the rest of the fabric.
-
That is from a photo that shows the rifle in the lower position.
Explain the shadow..
-
Explain the shadow..
You are not understanding what I am saying. The shadow is because the rifle is raised. It is obviously nowhere near as raised, when the end is near the mole under her chin.
-
You are not understanding what I am saying. The shadow is because the rifle is raised. It is obviously nowhere near as raised, when the end is near the mole under her chin.
Its resting on her right breast. Its not possible to lower it.
-
Its a void in the bloodstain. The photo has been manipulated to make it appear brighter than the rest of the fabric.
There is no point in falsely manipulating a photo for which negatives exist. As explained, any filter is to assist in clarifying the position, shape and design of the object in question. Like I said, if police enhance footage of a parked van to clarify the license plate number, it is the same thing. The object is present it just needs clarifying.
-
Its resting on her right breast. Its not possible to lower it.
And it it is moved upwards then that represents a change of pivot / balance of the object and positioning of the barrel end.
-
There is no point in falsely manipulating a photo for which negatives exist.
But that is what has been done.
As explained, any filter is to assist in clarifying the position, shape and design of the object in question. Like I said, if police enhance footage of a parked van to clarify the license plate number, it is the same thing. The object is present it just needs clarifying.
A number plate on a car is not something that has its existence in dispute. Enhancing a photo of that will render the numbers on the plate. The same cannot be said of this.
-
But that is what has been done.
A number plate on a car is not something that existence is disputed. Enhancing a photo of that will render the numbers on the plate. The same cannot be said of this.
I disagree on both counts. It is a complete waste of time trying to manipulate an image of something that doesn't exist on a police negative in the first place.
What would be the point?
-
I disagree on both counts. It is a complete waste of time trying to manipulate an image of something that doesn't exist on a police negative in the first place.
What would be the point?
Because Bills an idiot? :-\
-
Because Bills an idiot? :-\
I think that remark speaks for itself.
-
The rifle has not been moved, for the same reason this pencil has not been moved. The space between the screen and the pencil, likewise the space between the rifle and Sheila's throat. In both cases all that has moved is the camera!
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-940df9c4a99d4a21503d82e5e6334abc.webp)
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-830606312100691acb9f43052eb4087e.webp)
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-abe0fd80c7e75464e4a0a151d0657949.webp)
-
I think that remark speaks for itself.
GOOD LORD ALMIGHTY Roch,i may be fantasising now,but i would almost swear that we are looking at two different rifles here.And THAT would explain why the barrel is further up.Is there any way to compare the barrel lengths in the different photos,does one look longer to you.
-
GOOD LORD ALMIGHTY Roch,i may be fantasising now,but i would almost swear that we are looking at two different rifles here.And THAT would explain why the barrel is further up.Is there any way to compare the barrel lengths in the different photos,does one look longer to you.
You are indeed fantasising. :-\
-
You are indeed fantasising. :-\
Thank you Dave,must have been a sudden brainstorm.
-
GOOD LORD ALMIGHTY Roch,i may be fantasising now,but i would almost swear that we are looking at two different rifles here.And THAT would explain why the barrel is further up.Is there any way to compare the barrel lengths in the different photos,does one look longer to you.
I don't think it's been suggested before. But if you think you're on to something, you should look in to it further. Don't let people with rigidly closed minds put you off.
-
The rifle has not been moved, for the same reason this pencil has not been moved. The space between the screen and the pencil, likewise the space between the rifle and Sheila's throat. In both cases all that has moved is the camera!
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-940df9c4a99d4a21503d82e5e6334abc.webp)
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-830606312100691acb9f43052eb4087e.webp)
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-abe0fd80c7e75464e4a0a151d0657949.webp)
Nah. The rifle has been moved. This does not explain the difference in this particular instance. It merely shows that perspective and angle can act to visually distort in some instances.
-
Nah. The rifle has been moved. This does not explain the difference in this particular instance. It merely shows that perspective and angle can act to visually distort in some instances.
It has not been moved. Both photos have been taken at very different angles.
-
Another one for a Spec-savers appointment ::)
-
Look at Sheila's left hand/ arm in those two photographs.
You'll be saying she was clean next David.
-
Look at Sheila's left hand/ arm in those two photographs.
You'll be saying she was clean next David.
We know her hand was moved!
-
It has not been moved. Both photos have been taken at very different angles.
The differences in angles of photography are insufficient to explain the huge difference in the position of the rifle barrel end.
-
The differences in angles of photography are insufficient to explain the huge difference in the position of the rifle barrel end.
Now you are just making things up. Use photogrammetry software like I have or hire a photogrammetry expert and see for yourself.
If you don't fancy that, get your wife/partner to lie down flat and put a broomstick on her left breast and see for yourself.
-
Now you are just making things up. Use photogrammetry software like I have or hire a photogrammetry expert and see for yourself.
If you don't fancy that, get your wife/partner to lie down flat and put a broomstick on her left breast and see for yourself.
David - look at a picture of the rifle in the “lowered” position. The end of the barrel is not in contact with Sheila’s body, this can be seen by the shadow in the picture that you posted.
Now look at the close up pictures in the “raised” position the end of the barrel immediately before the silencer screw (forward of the forward sights) is in contact with her neck, it can be seen from several angles - this cannot be paralax error
-
Now you are just making things up. Use photogrammetry software like I have or hire a photogrammetry expert and see for yourself.
If you don't fancy that, get your wife/partner to lie down flat and put a broomstick on her left breast and see for yourself.
I was going to suggest you do the same. But I don't trust you wouldn't move the rifle. Can't make head nor take of your pomegranate software.
-
Its a void in the bloodstain. The photo has been manipulated to make it appear brighter than the rest of the fabric.
Yeah that's what it looks like to my untrained eye.
-
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=38630;image
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=39391;image
If these post correctly then hopefully it clearly shows the movement. The first photo looks to be taken from almost straight above - no paralax error on where the barrel is.
The second photo is from a side position clearly showing the Barrel well above the necklace line
-
Pathological details which were irrelevant to whether or not she carried out the killings were not screened out. So there was no need for nicotined fingers to be missing. Nor stretch marks etc etc.
You cannot possibly know whether both had unblemished careers. QC recently showed that Knight was a pathologist for the prosecution in an MOJ (not that I am saying Knight did anything wrong - I am not familiar with the case).
You were recently shown that Vanezis was involved in a controversial Malaysian case, for the authorities. He was also involved in a UK wrongful conviction. Unless you have canvassed a sample of pathologists regarding PV's professional reputation, I doubt you can trumpet his rep here.
I'm afraid that the discovery of the pendant earring snagged on her nightdress is a case of sour grapes for you. It throws up all sorts of questions that you cannot allow your self to encompass.
If there was anything untoward they would have been struck off.
What aspects of the pathological evidence do you believe are harmful to Bamber?
-
Yeah that's what it looks like to my untrained eye.
Well it would do wouldn't it? What a load of tosh. BTW, how do you 'train' an eye to spot something. I'll give you a clue... You don't need a phD.
When David was first shown it, he suggested it was a different corporeal object altogether. Now he favours that it's non corporeal object (well almost). One thing you both have in common is that you both individually believe that only yourself can solve the case. I think it has fostered in you an unhealthy, obsessive dismissiveness.
-
If there was anything untoward they would have been struck off.
What aspects of the pathological evidence do you believe are harmful to Bamber?
Why would a prosecution friendly pathologist be struck off? They're like the goose that laid the golden egg.
Don't understand your second question.
-
I don't think it's been suggested before. But if you think you're on to something, you should look in to it further. Don't let people with rigidly closed minds put you off.
Im afraid i dont have any soft ware or expertise to check out such an idea Roch.You could try blowing up the pictures of the rifles and look for minor differences i suppose.
-
David - look at a picture of the rifle in the “lowered” position. The end of the barrel is not in contact with Sheila’s body, this can be seen by the shadow in the picture that you posted.
Now look at the close up pictures in the “raised” position the end of the barrel immediately before the silencer screw (forward of the forward sights) is in contact with her neck, it can be seen from several angles - this cannot be paralax error
I don't know what you are talking about. Please attach photos and demonstrate.
-
Well it would do wouldn't it? What a load of tosh. BTW, how do you 'train' an eye to spot something. I'll give you a clue... You don't need a phD.
When David was first shown it, he suggested it was a different corporeal object altogether. Now he favours that it's non corporeal object (well almost). One thing you both have in common is that you both individually believe that only yourself can solve the case. I think it has fostered in you an unhealthy, obsessive dismissiveness.
I was first shown a doctored photograph.
-
Well it would do wouldn't it? What a load of tosh. BTW, how do you 'train' an eye to spot something. I'll give you a clue... You don't need a phD.
When David was first shown it, he suggested it was a different corporeal object altogether. Now he favours that it's non corporeal object (well almost). One thing you both have in common is that you both individually believe that only yourself can solve the case. I think it has fostered in you an unhealthy, obsessive dismissiveness.
The case can be solved by anyone studying the evidence. Looney conspiracy theories will always be dismissed.
-
I was first shown a doctored photograph.
Regardless of filter, the item is visible. Some filters will make the item more visible and some less. You know this and so does everyone who has a smart phone and has played around with photos. You are being deliberately obtuse and your use of the term doctored is offensive and misplaced.
-
The case can be solved by anyone studying the evidence. Looney conspiracy theories will always be dismissed.
Obsessively trying to shift all blame away from police and on to relatives instead will not solve this case.
-
Obsessively trying to shift all blame away from police and on to relatives instead will not solve this case.
I follow the evidence. Looney conspiracy theories involving the police crop up a lot here, hence I end up refuting them.
-
I follow the evidence. Looney conspiracy theories involving the police crop up a lot here, hence I end up refuting them.
Using the term 'conspiracy theorist' in a pejorative manner simply closes off and undermines meaningful debate. If nobody ever conspired, the term conspiracy wouldn't exist.
-
Using the term 'conspiracy theorist' in a pejorative manner simply closes off and undermines meaningful debate. If nobody ever conspired, the term conspiracy wouldn't exist.
We have had this discussion before.
-
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=38630;image
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=39391;image
If these post correctly then hopefully it clearly shows the movement. The first photo looks to be taken from almost straight above - no paralax error on where the barrel is.
The second photo is from a side position clearly showing the Barrel well above the necklace line
No, that is a parallax.
-
No, that is a parallax.
You believe so but you're having some trouble convincing members.
-
You believe so but you're having some trouble convincing members.
Remember my 3D work? I have just crudely set up this scenario up in Blender. The only thing that I have changed is the angle of the camera.
-
Remember my 3D work? I have just crudely set up this scenario up in Blender. The only thing that I have changed is the angle of the camera.
And if you are still not convinced - I have made a video
https://streamable.com/adtqf9 (https://streamable.com/adtqf9)
-
And if you are still not convinced - I have made a video
https://streamable.com/adtqf9 (https://streamable.com/adtqf9)
I can see where you're coming from but ideally, would need to take in to account the rifle being on the correct side of her. Then you need to know the angle that the photos were taken from. And would need to try and mimick those. One of photos were the rifle seems high looks an almost side on shot, at the top end of her body. I can't see a broom experiment coming up with that result. Still sceptical.
-
Also, one of the images chosen to display the absence of the object in question, is one of the worst images in terms of quality / clarity.
Furthermore, the object sits in the lee of a bloodied fold. If that lee can only be seen from certain angles, then your argument of parallax could be responsible for the seeming lack of the object in question. If you can only see the unbroken column of blood (where you would normally see the object) from certain angles, then this could also be down to perspective. As a poster pointed out - the gap where there is no blood cannot just suddenly become covered in blood.
-
I can see where you're coming from but ideally, would need to take in to account the rifle being on the correct side of her. Then you need to know the angle that the photos were taken from. And would need to try and mimick those. One of photos were the rifle seems high looks an almost side on shot, at the top end of her body. I can't see a broom experiment coming up with that result. Still sceptical.
Surely this topic has been discussed before Roch,what was the decision then,what does Mike say about it.
-
Surely this topic has been discussed before Roch,what was the decision then,what does Mike say about it.
It was argued to death in the past. Not sure what the result was. Have you seen my post about the lee of the bloodied fold (above)?
-
It was argued to death in the past. Not sure what the result was. Have you seen my post about the lee of the bloodied fold (above)?
Do you mean the earring could be hidden in a sort of a valley in some photos Roch,most are taken from above showing the blood stained patch.I still maintain the rifle was re-positioned,and that is when the earring was tampered with.Perhaps we will need a vote to see who thinks the rifle has been moved further up the body and those who think it is an illusion.
-
Do you mean the earring could be hidden in a sort of a valley in some photos Roch,most are taken from above showing the blood stained patch.I still maintain the rifle was re-positioned,and that is when the earring was tampered with.Perhaps we will need a vote to see who thinks the rifle has been moved further up the body and those who think it is an illusion.
We say earring, they say gap in the column of blood. Either way, if you can't see the gap then you can't see the earring.
-
To me parallax is not really the correct term? nothing is being measured and so any difference is just due to 3d geometry. Parallax error occurs where the viewer needs to be square on, for example reading time or speed of a car.
Sorry David I think the rifle has clearly moved.
-
To me parallax is not really the correct term? nothing is being measured and so any difference is just due to 3d geometry. Parallax error occurs where the viewer needs to be square on, for example reading time or speed of a car.
Sorry David I think the rifle has clearly moved.
I have effectively recreated the exact same thing here.
https://streamable.com/adtqf9 (https://streamable.com/adtqf9)
-
Also, one of the images chosen to display the absence of the object in question, is one of the worst images in terms of quality / clarity.
Furthermore, the object sits in the lee of a bloodied fold. If that lee can only be seen from certain angles, then your argument of parallax could be responsible for the seeming lack of the object in question. If you can only see the unbroken column of blood (where you would normally see the object) from certain angles, then this could also be down to perspective. As a poster pointed out - the gap where there is no blood cannot just suddenly become covered in blood.
The object in question is on the fabric, there is no space. The parallax effect only works when there is space between objects. Hence the rifle appears moved in relation to Sheila's neck and head.
-
The object in question is on the fabric, there is no space. The parallax effect only works when there is space between objects. Hence the rifle appears moved in relation to Sheila's neck and head.
David, you can't have a gap in the blood column on the fabric, which disappears when viewed from another angle. Well you can actually. But what it means is, the gap hasn't actually disappeared, you just can't see it, because of perspective.
What's the alternative David? I'll tell you. The alternative is that fresh blood filled the gap. That's not possible.
-
David, you can't have a gap in the blood column on the fabric, which disappears when viewed from another angle. Well you can actually. But what it means is, the gap hasn't actually disappeared, you just can't see it, because of perspective.
What's the alternative David? I'll tell you. The alternative is that fresh blood filled the gap. That's not possible.
The whole area is hidden by a flash shadow. Hence it is completely dark in some photos (depending on the angle of the photographer.
-
I have effectively recreated the exact same thing here.
https://streamable.com/adtqf9 (https://streamable.com/adtqf9)
You are very skilled with Blender David, I used to use it. The problem is in one image the end of the rifle is touching Sheilas throat so the effect you create in your animation is not really valid.
I am looking at the shadow of the rifle it disappears towards Sheilas throat.
-
The problem is in one image the end of the rifle is touching Sheilas throat
No, its a parallax. I can even make it seem like the rifle is balancing on her chin by just changing perspective.
-
No, its a parallax. I can even make it seem like the rifle is balancing on her chin by just changing perspective.
You could be right, but the shadows look wrong to me but I don't want to argue.
What do you think the mark is on the right side of Sheilas throat? it looks like a bruise?
-
No, its a parallax. I can even make it seem like the rifle is balancing on her chin by just changing perspective.
Come on David, this is silly. And as for flash shadow??
-
You could be right, but the shadows look wrong to me but I don't want to argue.
What do you think the mark is on the right side of Sheilas throat? it looks like a bruise?
Dont fold Rob,no one else is backing up Dave,they know he is wrong.Why isnt Adam or Steve giving their point of view.
-
It's funny how supporters can see Sheila's wet running blood and the rifle moving when so called experts are stumped.
If it's obvious the rifle has been moved, why would the police deny it yet release photographs that prove them wrong? And this despite them wickedly hiding that big box marked "top secret"!
Sorry folks, I'm with David on this.
-
It's funny how supporters can see Sheila's wet running blood and the rifle moving when so called experts are stumped.
If it's obvious the rifle has been moved, why would the police deny it yet release photographs that prove them wrong? And this despite them wickedly hiding that big box marked "top secret"!
Sorry folks, I'm with David on this.
Depending on the quality of the photographs it might be possible to recreate a 3d model this would settle the issue.
-
Dont fold Rob,no one else is backing up Dave,they know he is wrong.Why isnt Adam or Steve giving their point of view.
I have been wondering where Adam has been hiding Snow? perhaps he knows the game is up?
-
Depending on the quality of the photographs it might be possible to recreate a 3d model this would settle the issue.
This is a very old issue, you might think Peter Sutherst had a glance at it.
I believe police interference with the CS is one of the grounds in the CCRC application so it should be slam dunk to prove the rifle has been moved if amateur sleuths can see it.
Some people just see what they want to see, or worse, they see what is suggested to them.
-
It's funny how supporters can see Sheila's wet running blood and the rifle moving when so called experts are stumped.
If it's obvious the rifle has been moved, why would the police deny it yet release photographs that prove them wrong? And this despite them wickedly hiding that big box marked "top secret"!
Sorry folks, I'm with David on this.
I thought the police admitted moving the rifle AD.Anyway it isnt so much the fact it was moved.it is the fact that the earring[white dot,object] disappeared once this happened.It cant be coincidence,the dot vanished once the rifle,shall we say ,APPEARED to move position.No way in my opinion.
-
I have been wondering where Adam has been hiding Snow? perhaps he knows the game is up?
Of course Rob,he is no fool.
-
This is a very old issue, you might think Peter Sutherst had a glance at it.
I believe police interference with the CS is one of the grounds in the CCRC application so it should be slam dunk to prove the rifle has been moved if amateur sleuths can see it.
Some people just see what they want to see, or worse, they see what is suggested to them.
I just give a honest opinion well I try to, if the rifle has not been moved, then with good quality photographs it might be possible to create a 3d model. Anyone could do this don't have to be a expert.
-
Of course Rob,he is no fool.
I agree but he tells a lot of porkies and has a terrible memory!
-
I agree but he tells a lot of porkies and has a terrible memory!
Well he shouldnt have a bad memoryif he has given his true age Rob,
-
Well he shouldnt have a bad memoryif he has given his true age Rob,
Ah ok I did not know his age Snow, I just assumed at how quickly he forgot things that ;)
-
This is a very old issue, you might think Peter Sutherst had a glance at it.
I believe police interference with the CS is one of the grounds in the CCRC application so it should be slam dunk to prove the rifle has been moved if amateur sleuths can see it.
Some people just see what they want to see, or worse, they see what is suggested to them.
Nobody suggested it to me AD,it was so obvious i presumed it must be common knowledge.If that rifle has not been re-positionsd AD,i am a monkeys uncle.
-
I agree but he tells a lot of porkies and has a terrible memory!
How can I tell a porky when I'm giving an opinion on sourced evidence?
-
How can I tell a porky when I'm giving an opinion on sourced evidence?
Adam glad to hear from you, I was wondering where you had gone!
-
How can I tell a porky when I'm giving an opinion on sourced evidence?
Well whats your opinion on the moving rifle Adam.If you back up Dave i will have to go outside,climb a tree and eat a banana.
-
Looking at the photos of the deceased Sheila, you might at first glance form the opinion that the rifle has been moved. But on closer inspection you would quickly become aware that you would need an experienced opinion from an expert in photographic perspective.
Making a decision regarding the rifle without that opinion should not convince a serious student of this case. I am not a researcher or a student of this case but I would certainly reserve judgement on the rifle and would not jump to a conclusion after just a few on line viewings.
-
Looking at the photos of the deceased Sheila, you might at first glance form the opinion that the rifle has been moved. But on closer inspection you would quickly become aware that you would need an experienced opinion from an expert in photographic perspective.
Making a decision regarding the rifle without that opinion should not convince a serious student of this case. I am not a researcher or a student of this case but I would certainly reserve judgement on the rifle and would not jump to a conclusion after just a few on line viewings.
I can assure you 100% there is no movement of the gun in those photos. I used photogrammetry software because I set out to try and prove it was moved, but the opposite turned out to be the case.
-
I can assure you 100% there is no movement of the gun in those photos. I used photogrammetry software because I set out to try and prove it was moved, but the opposite turned out to be the case.
I will be able to conclude this thread when I get a chance later. Just out of interest though, if you are correct re parallax etc, How do we ascertain the exact position of the rifle in real terms? I assume you would need to have a camera directly above SC, facing down.
-
It's funny how supporters can see Sheila's wet running blood and the rifle moving when so called experts are stumped.
If it's obvious the rifle has been moved, why would the police deny it yet release photographs that prove them wrong? And this despite them wickedly hiding that big box marked "top secret"!
Sorry folks, I'm with David on this.
On occasions, I don't think the police intentionally release evidence that is potentially harmful to the prosecution. During the handover from Ewen Smith to GDS, Mike was given an opportunity to view photographs. He used this opportunity to take his own photographs of the photographs in question. Thus the crime scene images on the forum are photographs of photographs. There is so much material in this case, it would be difficult for EP to ensure 100% that nothing was released which might aid the defence. That is not to say they haven't tried mind, at various stages.
-
There has been definite movement---look at Sheila's left arm and hand ! Did she do that on her own ? ::)
-
I can assure you 100% there is no movement of the gun in those photos. I used photogrammetry software because I set out to try and prove it was moved, but the opposite turned out to be the case.
I would broadly agree with that. Obviously if it was crucial and I was on the jury your credentials would need to be verified but on the whole I think your judgement on this point is correct.
-
I honestly give up.
-
I can assure you 100% there is no movement of the gun in those photos. I used photogrammetry software because I set out to try and prove it was moved, but the opposite turned out to be the case.
I'm prepared to consider your claim but could you also not have included the gun as a reference point in some way?
-
I'm prepared to consider your claim but could you also not have included the gun as a reference point in some way?
The gun cannot be a refence point, because its the item being scrutinize for movement against its surroundings.
-
Wasn't the rifle supposed to have initially been by Sheila's side, or what ? How many officers hadn't noticed that it was on top of her body ?
-
Wasn't the rifle supposed to have initially been by Sheila's side, or what ? How many officers hadn't noticed that it was on top of her body ?
This issue aside Lookout.. Not a single officer could view that scene without immediately realising it was staged. Some pretty senior detectives went in to that farmhouse. Even a rooky with an ounce of common sense would be puzzled. It is patently obvious that it is not how Sheila was originally discovered (even without the TFG comments).
-
This issue aside Lookout.. Not a single officer could view that scene without immediately realising it was staged. Some pretty senior detectives went in to that farmhouse. Even a rooky with an ounce of common sense would be puzzled. It is patently obvious that it is not how Sheila was originally discovered (even without the TFG comments).
What evidence makes you believe this?
-
Sheila had slumped against the bedside locker with her head bent inwards which would account for the blood which had pooled within her right shoulder area. Photographs show her flat on her back---moved !
June was originally slumped behind the bedroom door, hence the brush-stroke of blood on it. She was found flat on the floor, splayed out----moved !
-
Sheila had slumped against the bedside locker with her head bent inwards which would account for the blood which had pooled within her right shoulder area. Photographs show her flat on her back---moved !
June was originally slumped behind the bedroom door, hence the brush-stroke of blood on it. She was found flat on the floor, splayed out----moved !
The blood from Sheila's mouth is running vertically down Sheila's cheeks to her ears. Gravity dictates she fell flat.
-
The blood from Sheila's mouth is running vertically down Sheila's cheeks to her ears. Gravity dictates she fell flat.
And her head was moved sideways---unless she did it herself. The blood from her mouth came out both sides of her mouth after she'd been moved.
-
What evidence makes you believe this?
You think her scene looks genuine? it looks very stagey to me. As if somebody is trying to get Sheila to speak from the other side.. 'I know I've got two gunshot wounds.. but look.. it was me'.
Those who support guilt will say.. 'yes, that's exactly what Jeremy did'.
-
It stands to sense that Sheila's head had been on the right side because of the way the blood had pooled in that area, before re-arranging in the dorsal position.
-
I can assure you 100% there is no movement of the gun in those photos. I used photogrammetry software because I set out to try and prove it was moved, but the opposite turned out to be the case.
Which images did you use David? I am far from convinced sorry? my job sometimes involves creating models from often hundreds of photographs.
-
it looks very stagey to me.
🛸👽
-
🛸👽
👽👾🛸
-
However the photographs are viewed, they certainly won't be how they were first found, and that's something we'll never get to see.
-
However the photographs are viewed, they certainly won't be how they were first found, and that's something we'll never get to see.
Which rather begs the question, is there proof that such ever existed, other than, because of the quality, having been rejects?
-
Which rather begs the question, is there proof that such ever existed, other than, because of the quality, having been rejects?
Such a situation can work both ways.
-
Well it would do wouldn't it? What a load of tosh. BTW, how do you 'train' an eye to spot something. I'll give you a clue... You don't need a phD.
When David was first shown it, he suggested it was a different corporeal object altogether. Now he favours that it's non corporeal object (well almost). One thing you both have in common is that you both individually believe that only yourself can solve the case. I think it has fostered in you an unhealthy, obsessive dismissiveness.
Only a fool would deny miscarriages of justice occur but are you able to cite a case where multiple participants conspired against a very ordinary person?
Supporters would have us believe that everyone conspired from first respondents to the Home Office pathologist.
-
Only a fool would deny miscarriages of justice occur but are you able to cite a case where multiple participants conspired against a very ordinary person?
Supporters would have us believe that everyone conspired from first respondents to the Home Office pathologist.
Not from and to. Guilters would have us believe that supporters claim things are that simple, which they do not.
BTW you are a supporter, as you well know. But I will not mention that again for a few months.
-
Why would a prosecution friendly pathologist be struck off? They're like the goose that laid the golden egg.
Don't understand your second question.
Without wishing to sound rude I think you lack sensible reasoning. Prof Vanezis has worked all over the globe over decades. If he was as you put it a "prosecution friendly pathologist" how has he been able to commit perjury and slip under the radar? If the police and pathologists are routinely conspiring then how come defence pathologists go along with this? If they're not routinely conspiring then what makes Bamber's case any different to all the thousands of other cases? And why would Prof Knight for the defence go along with the perjury?
Prof Vanezis' trial testimony is in the library here - what aspect of it was harmful to Bamber's defence?
He always maintained he was unable to conclude murder or suicide. If he testified that he thought suicide was more likely or that he didn't think Sheila could have overpowered her father in the kitchen then I can understand why supporters might be aggrieved but he said nothing of the sort. The pathological evidence is entirely neutral. Bamber has never challenged any aspect of it.
Bamber's conviction rests on the blood in the silencer not the pathological evidence and wishful thinking about dangling earrings and unreported defence wounds.
-
Not from and to. Guilters would have us believe that supporters claim things are that simple, which they do not.
BTW you are a supporter, as you well know. But I will not mention that again for a few months.
The case is simple. Its supporters who want to over complicate with fictitious claims.
Bit silly keep saying I'm supporter. What evidence do you have to support this?
-
The case is simple. Its supporters who want to over complicate with fictitious claims.
Again an over simplification.
Supporters who work in 'echo chambers' are more prone to their unconscious bias leading them to interpret what they want to see from ambiguous evidence.
Not all supporters fit in to the above category but may at times stray in to it.
Some supporters have completely different theories.
Your blanket opinion and dismissal that all supporter claims are fictitious is in part caused by your own rigid stance, which is based upon some evidence from 1985.
It's you that chooses not to be more open minded. But you should understand that your choice to be closed minded can have absolutely no impact on the actual evidence itself.
-
It's a known fact that lights were going on or off in various rooms, curtains opening/ closing. Who was doing this when all occupants were allegedly dead at 03.26 ( said EP ) ? While JB was outside with police officers.
Can guilters explain this " phenomenon ?".
-
Jeremy Bamber@JBamberFacebook·Feb 15
The jury were not told the blood was also an exact match for beneficiary Robert Boutflour. Sheilas DNA was not found yet that of an unknown male was. Robert Boutflour never gave a DNA sample.
Please follow, share, like, comment
This doesn't seem like confirmation bias Roch, it appears to be a bare faced lie and blatant appeal to tin foil hatters.
-
Again an over simplification.
Supporters who work in 'echo chambers' are more prone to their unconscious bias leading them to interpret what they want to see from ambiguous evidence.
Not all supporters fit in to the above category but may at times stray in to it.
Some supporters have completely different theories.
Your blanket opinion and dismissal that all supporter claims are fictitious is in part caused by your own rigid stance, which is based upon some evidence from 1985.
It's you that chooses not to be more open minded. But you should understand that your choice to be closed minded can have absolutely no impact on the actual evidence itself.
Well if I am who you say I am I spent some considerable time batting for the other side among hardcore guilters and defended my corner when the situation arose. No need for me to defend much of what Bamber and his support people put out as it doesn't stand up. Maybe you and others here need a secondment? The words 'echo chamber' might have been invented for Bamber's support group and some here.
If you look at other miscarriages of justice they follow similar patterns. No case has involved multiple conspiracies which is what Bamber's support group argue.
-
On the contrary, it's always been the guilters who've shouted the loudest ? Why's that when the man's in prison anyway ?
-
Surely, guilters have got their way ? What more do you want ?
-
Well if I am who you say I am I spent some considerable time batting for the other side among hardcore guilters and defended my corner when the situation arose. No need for me to defend much of what Bamber and his support people put out as it doesn't stand up. Maybe you and others here need a secondment? The words 'echo chamber' might have been invented for Bamber's support group and some here.
If you look at other miscarriages of justice they follow similar patterns. No case has involved multiple conspiracies which is what Bamber's support group argue.
I appreciate your candour here. Regarding the multiple conspiracies. I think this is closer to what happened:
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8513.msg404906.html#msg404906
You seem to have an unshakable belief that our systems relating to police, justice, pathology, forensics, enquiries are all able to run completely independently, and in a manner which ensures no wrongdoing could occur. Personally I think that is naive.
-
Well if I am who you say I am I spent some considerable time batting for the other side among hardcore guilters and defended my corner when the situation arose. No need for me to defend much of what Bamber and his support people put out as it doesn't stand up. Maybe you and others here need a secondment? The words 'echo chamber' might have been invented for Bamber's support group and some here.
If you look at other miscarriages of justice they follow similar patterns. No case has involved multiple conspiracies which is what Bamber's support group argue.
There always has to be a first time. The reason in this case might be that in most MOJ's there is some reason other than an outright framing. I stands to reason that if this is the case and the EP have been thorough in their endeavours there are likely to be only some small issues to be found where it is clear that evidence has been manipulated to obtain the conviction, whilst the bulk of the evidence shows guilt. Those who believe in innocence can only point to issues which support this side of the argument.
-
I appreciate your candour here. Regarding the multiple conspiracies. I think this is closer to what happened:
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8513.msg404906.html#msg404906
You seem to have an unshakable belief that our systems relating to police, justice, pathology, forensics, enquiries are all able to run completely independently, and in a manner which ensures no wrongdoing could occur. Personally I think that is naive.
I've stated this morning that miscarriages do occur. Are you able to cite a case where multiple participants conspired to pervert the course of justice? If you're unable to do so what makes you so sure Bamber's case has set a precedent?
-
I've stated this morning that miscarriages do occur. Are you able to cite a case where multiple participants conspired to pervert the course of justice? If you're unable to do so what makes you so sure Bamber's case has set a precedent?
This case has many unique elements. The fact that we had a secured property and we are relying entirely on the police to give a truthful account of what happened when they entered the building is a major part.
A 'jilted lover'. The fact that it took the police a month to uncover JB's cunning plans, etc. A family which pointed the finger at JB in the first week when they stood to gain financially from a conviction and for all that the only evidence against JB is circumstantial. A review of the case by Keneally saying SC was the perpetrator.
Given the totality of the behaviour of EP particularly on the issues of disclosure of both documents and photos I say this strongly suggests they may have something to hide. Other wise why all this time and effort over 36+ years trying to keep a local farmers son in prison. If they blame JB for all this then the easy answer to be rid of him is to give him the information he seeks.
-
Has the mark beside Sheilas right hand/wrist,on her nightdress been discussed before.It seems to resemble the shape of a bullet.You can see it on page 2 of the crime scene photos.MS,10,11,21,22,23,31 and 34.
-
Has the mark beside Sheilas right hand/wrist,on her nightdress been discussed before.It seems to resemble the shape of a bullet.You can see it on page 2 of the crime scene photos.MS,10,11,21,22,23,31 and 34.
Peter Vanezis said it was smearing from her wrist. Doesn't look like it to me.
-
Has the mark beside Sheilas right hand/wrist,on her nightdress been discussed before.It seems to resemble the shape of a bullet.You can see it on page 2 of the crime scene photos.MS,10,11,21,22,23,31 and 34.
In higher definition photos it can be seen as oval or egg shaped, approximately 25mm wide and maybe 40-50mm long. It has the appearance of a smear of blood.
-
In higher definition photos it can be seen as oval or egg shaped, approximately 25mm wide and maybe 40-50mm long. It has the appearance of a smear of blood.
Hi Bill,pleased to meet you.So it is just a smear of blood then.
-
Hi Bill,pleased to meet you.So it is just a smear of blood then.
Yes I think it is just a smear of blood
-
Yes I think it is just a smear of blood
Thanks Bill.
-
Does anyone know whether it was ever pinpointed, exactly where this image came from and exactly who it depicts?
-
Does anyone know whether it was ever pinpointed, exactly where this image came from and exactly who it depicts?
I believe it to be SC based on the nose shape and what appear to be two gunshot wounds. I am curios as to what she is lying on. It has a dark background and we only have pictures of her with a light coloured background. It could be a body bag and show her condition on arrival at the mortuary. It could also be some form of blanket. Other posters may have other views.
-
I believe it to be SC based on the nose shape and what appear to be two gunshot wounds. I am curios as to what she is lying on. It has a dark background and we only have pictures of her with a light coloured background. It could be a body bag and show her condition on arrival at the mortuary. It could also be some form of blanket. Other posters may have other views.
Looks like SC to me, but the blood patterns don't make sense? Looks very suspicious?
Is that a earring on the left side?
-
I believe it to be SC based on the nose shape and what appear to be two gunshot wounds. I am curios as to what she is lying on. It has a dark background and we only have pictures of her with a light coloured background. It could be a body bag and show her condition on arrival at the mortuary. It could also be some form of blanket. Other posters may have other views.
I couldn't find the part of her nightdress which is sticking up on other images. A body bag might explain the smearing of blood on her throat. The quality of photography is poor.
-
Looks like SC to me, but the blood patterns don't make sense? Looks very suspicious?
Is that a earring on the left side?
I saw the image again the other day, and due to recent debate, I was instantly struck by what might be a drop earring hanging from the left ear area.
-
I saw the image again the other day, and due to recent debate, I was instantly struck by what might be a drop earring hanging from the left ear area.
Yes that's what I thought to, it looks like SC has been rolled onto her right side then back? If SC died 8 hours or so previous to the photographs being taken would this happen?
I am looking at the blood patterns.
-
I believe it to be SC based on the nose shape and what appear to be two gunshot wounds. I am curios as to what she is lying on. It has a dark background and we only have pictures of her with a light coloured background. It could be a body bag and show her condition on arrival at the mortuary. It could also be some form of blanket. Other posters may have other views.
Look at the bottom right of the dark area - is it reflecting the flash? What are body bags made of, polyurethane?
-
I don't think this pic was taken at the mortuary as it looks like the bedroom carpet beneath the body bag.
-
I don't think this pic was taken at the mortuary as it looks like the bedroom carpet beneath the body bag.
I thought that. it does not look like a mortuary photo as such because it would likely have been taken on a stainless steel bench or trolley.
-
I don't think this pic was taken at the mortuary as it looks like the bedroom carpet beneath the body bag.
A bedside rug over a carpet, perhaps?
-
A bedside rug over a carpet, perhaps?
The carpet that was underneath the large Chinese rug which was burned. Sheila only had a tatty little door mat beneath her when photographed, which could have originally been a piece left over when the carpet was fitted. The lighter background on the two pics is the bedroom carpet that we see beneath the bodies of June and Sheila.
-
I thought that. it does not look like a mortuary photo as such because it would likely have been taken on a stainless steel bench or trolley.
Could it be where they have lifted her and placed her on top of the body bag, prior to removal?
-
Looks like SC to me, but the blood patterns don't make sense? Looks very suspicious?
I think it is not SC. Nose too big and pointed, nostrils too large. Also, at the time, Sheila had a chubbier face. The face in the image seems quite a bit less fleshy.
Eyebrow too arched. SC had smoothly rounded eyebrows. The ones in the photo seem more angled.
Might be an image from a TV programme?
-
I think it is not SC. Nose too big and pointed, nostrils too large. Also, at the time, Sheila had a chubbier face. The face in the image seems quite a bit less fleshy.
Eyebrow too arched. SC had smoothly rounded eyebrows. The ones in the photo seem more angled.
Might be an image from a TV programme?
I think I noticed a difference with the nostrils when the images first came to light years ago. Is there any possibility that this is due to angle that the image was taken from?
There is something accurate looking about the shape of the throat and chin. You may indeed be correct but if so, the documentary maker went to extreme lengths to produce a gory crime scene image?
-
I think it is not SC. Nose too big and pointed, nostrils too large. Also, at the time, Sheila had a chubbier face. The face in the image seems quite a bit less fleshy.
Eyebrow too arched. SC had smoothly rounded eyebrows. The ones in the photo seem more angled.
Might be an image from a TV programme?
This is what I've always thought Bill. The body is that of a much older person. It's the " old " nose.
-
Could be June, in which because her death was much earlier than Sheila's would have succumbed to RM a lot sooner causing the features to sink.
-
This is what I've always thought Bill. The body is that of a much older person. It's the " old " nose.
Strangely enough, my first impression was that it was Julie Mugford. It looks just like her in pictures as she entered the Court accompanied by her bodyguard, Stan the Man.
-
Could it be where they have lifted her and placed her on top of the body bag, prior to removal?
Hi Roch.In Peter Woodcocks statement,he says plastic bags were placed over Sheilas head and hands,then she was wrapped in a plastic sheet before being moved.This was after he had removed the rifle and made it safe.
-
Hi Roch.In Peter Woodcocks statement,he says plastic bags were placed over Sheilas head and hands,then she was wrapped in a plastic sheet before being moved.This was after he had removed the rifle and made it safe.
Thanks for that Snow.
-
I believe it to be SC based on the nose shape and what appear to be two gunshot wounds. I am curios as to what she is lying on. It has a dark background and we only have pictures of her with a light coloured background. It could be a body bag and show her condition on arrival at the mortuary. It could also be some form of blanket. Other posters may have other views.
I believe you are right. From a certain angle, her nose does look angular. Try zooming in to the nostrils area in the image below
(https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4992;image)
Looks like SC to me, but the blood patterns don't make sense? Looks very suspicious?
Is that a earring on the left side?
If it is, then the corresponding earring on the right is missing.
I think it is not SC. Nose too big and pointed, nostrils too large. Also, at the time, Sheila had a chubbier face. The face in the image seems quite a bit less fleshy.
Eyebrow too arched. SC had smoothly rounded eyebrows. The ones in the photo seem more angled.
Might be an image from a TV programme?
If I am correct about the nostrils, how would a documentary maker get an actress with the same nostrils? I do not think they would go to these lengths regarding gore. If the images in question are from the scene, it might explain why the raid team protested about the position of her head? Could it be that she was cleaned up as part of the restaging?
-
Some comparisons..
-
Can we have a photo comparison without all the blood ?
-
If I am correct about the nostrils, how would a documentary maker get an actress with the same nostrils? I do not think they would go to these lengths regarding gore. If the images in question are from the scene, it might explain why the raid team protested about the position of her head? Could it be that she was cleaned up as part of the restaging?
I am very squeamish but still think the image is Sheila? but if it is what is it telling us?
Was she rolled onto her right side causing the stain on the carpet needing the bible to cover it? plus staining her face?
-
I am very squeamish but still think the image is Sheila? but if it is what is it telling us?
Was she rolled onto her right side causing the stain on the carpet needing the bible to cover it? plus staining her face?
In that scenario, they must have cleaned up Sheila prior to crime scene photography, leaving only the original bloodstreams from the wounds. The stream from the lower wound doesn't look right in her crime scene images, it's almost as if it's too thin for the size of the wound. Could it have been wiped away?
-
In that scenario, they must have cleaned up Sheila prior to crime scene photography, leaving only the original bloodstreams from the wounds. The stream from the lower wound doesn't look right in her crime scene images, it's almost as if it's too thin for the size of the wound. Could it have been wiped away?
I agree the wounds don't look right? The lower wound to Sheila especially looks strange? Though PV seemed satisfied all was above board.
-
I agree the wounds don't look right? The lower wound to Sheila especially looks strange? Though PV seemed satisfied all was above board.
Pairing the term 'all above board' with Peter Vanezis seems a bit ironic.
-
Pairing the term 'all above board' with Peter Vanezis seems a bit ironic.
I must admit I was not to convinced myself!
-
This is a photo of Sheila. However its not at the crime scene since the bedside cabinet is not behind her.
-
This is a photo of Sheila. However its not at the crime scene since the bedside cabinet is not behind her.
Just to clarify, are you ruling out that it's the cabinet purely based on her head being in a different position to the thing behind her, i.e. in comparison to the normal crime scene images?
Or
Are you implying that the thing behind her is not the cabinet, based on some other analysis of it?
-
Just to clarify, are you ruling out that it's the cabinet purely based on her head being in a different position to the thing behind her, i.e. in comparison to the normal crime scene images?
Or
Are you implying that the thing behind her is not the cabinet, based on some other analysis of it?
From memory, I believe the bedside cabinets to have been the once popular Queen Anne style. These were usually pale cream in colour, with gold embossed patination. They stood atop bowed and curved legs, and were arched. It's practically impossible to say, with confidence, what it is, in the picture, she's almost laying against, but I'll hazard a guess that it isn't a Queen Anne styled bedside cabinet.
-
From memory, I believe the bedside cabinets to have been the once popular Queen Anne style. These were usually pale cream in colour, with gold embossed patination. They stood atop bowed and curved legs, and were arched. It's practically impossible to say, with confidence, what it is, in the picture, she's almost laying against, but I'll hazard a guess that it isn't a Queen Anne styled bedside cabinet.
Are you Arthur Negus in disguise? I haven't ruled out the cabinet just yet.
-
Just to clarify, are you ruling out that it's the cabinet purely based on her head being in a different position to the thing behind her, i.e. in comparison to the normal crime scene images?
Or
Are you implying that the thing behind her is not the cabinet, based on some other analysis of it?
Don't get what you are saying.
-
Don't get what you are saying.
Maybe someone else can rephrase my question? If they understand what I mean.
-
Don't get what you are saying.
There's been no takers to my suggestion so I will ask bare bones - how do you know it's not the cabinet behind her?
-
There's been no takers to my suggestion so I will ask bare bones - how do you know it's not the cabinet behind her?
Hi Roch,how are you today.Just a few thoughts.Its hard to know if that is the cabinet behind Sheila or not,due to the quality of the photo.Is it possible it WAS taken at the morgue.I mean once Sheila was moved after being wrapped in plastic,could the movement have forced more blood out of her mouth and smeared all over her face by the movement of the plastic bag.I dont know what an autopsy table looks like,but the image seems to show a blackish section above her head and a very bright section by her shoulder.How long would blood remain liquid after death.If Sheila died about 3.00 and she was moved at about 11.15 would it still run eight hours later.If she died about 7.45,that would just be three and a half hours before she was moved.Any thoughts Roch.
-
Hi Roch,how are you today.Just a few thoughts.Its hard to know if that is the cabinet behind Sheila or not,due to the quality of the photo.Is it possible it WAS taken at the morgue.I mean once Sheila was moved after being wrapped in plastic,could the movement have forced more blood out of her mouth and smeared all over her face by the movement of the plastic bag.I dont know what an autopsy table looks like,but the image seems to show a blackish section above her head and a very bright section by her shoulder.How long would blood remain liquid after death.If Sheila died about 3.00 and she was moved at about 11.15 would it still run eight hours later.If she died about 7.45,that would just be three and a half hours before she was moved.Any thoughts Roch.
Hello Snow, I am fine thanks for asking. Hope you are fine too. Will look at this tomorrow. 👍
-
Hello Snow, I am fine thanks for asking. Hope you are fine too. Will look at this tomorrow. 👍
No probs Roch.
-
Having looked up morgue tables,some of them do have a black cover which covers a sink for presumably washing away the blood.there is a clear line in the photo where the black part ends and the bright section[stainless steel?] starts.
-
What is that yellow objects at the front of Sheilas neck and below her right ear.Some sort of autopsy tubing instrument?
-
The tubing appears to be joined together by a metal object with two holes in it,and a part that is sticking up.
-
Seems i am talking to myself.Oh well,i will tell a joke instead.A guy i used to work with used to tell me,when times were hard,he used to live on a prairie sandwich.Two slices of bread and wide open spaces.Ha ha,anyone heard that one before,
-
Having looked up morgue tables,some of them do have a black cover which covers a sink for presumably washing away the blood.there is a clear line in the photo where the black part ends and the bright section[stainless steel?] starts.
The negatives will all be numbered and if they are in their original strips it should be easy to determine where the phots were taken?
Assuming they are genuine, I don't think these photos were taken at the morgue?
-
The negatives will all be numbered and if they are in their original strips it should be easy to determine where the phots were taken?
Assuming they are genuine, I don't think these photos were taken at the morgue?
Hi Rob,why dont you think the photo was taken at the morgue.
-
The negatives will all be numbered and if they are in their original strips it should be easy to determine where the phots were taken?
Assuming they are genuine, I don't think these photos were taken at the morgue?
Have you any suggestions on where the photo may have been taken?
-
Hi Rob,why dont you think the photo was taken at the morgue.
The photos may have been Snow, but to my eyes SC looks like she is in a domestic setting? Rather than on a trolley in a morgue? I am sure if we could see the next photos in the sequence it would become clear?
-
Have you any suggestions on where the photo may have been taken?
I don't know Jane to be honest, the quality of the photos are so poor.
-
The photos may have been Snow, but to my eyes SC looks like she is in a domestic setting? Rather than on a trolley in a morgue? I am sure if we could see the next photos in the sequence it would become clear?
One other thing Rob,if you notice,the rifle is absent.Unless we are to believe this is another one of Daves parallax views.
-
One other thing Rob,if you notice,the rifle is absent.Unless we are to believe this is another one of Daves parallax views.
Yes I noticed Snow, also the blood pattern on SCs throat looks like her head has been lowered?
-
Yes I noticed Snow, also the blood pattern on SCs throat looks like her head has been lowered?
Yes and probably straightened too Rob.This along with the absense of the rifle would possibly point to the photo being taken at the morgue.Although the dress would have probably been removed before examination.You will just have to find out where the photo came from Rob,and see if it can be verified genuine.
-
Dont you think that looks like rubber tubes connected by a valve system around her neck,sit back and take a look Rob.
-
Have you any suggestions on where the photo may have been taken?
Hi Jane,how are you.Have you any views about the photo and where it was taken.
-
Dont you think that looks like rubber tubes connected by a valve system around her neck,sit back and take a look Rob.
Yes there is something around her neck Snow, I guess we need to know if the photo is genuine first? But if it is Adam may not be sleeping to well?
-
Yes there is something around her neck Snow, I guess we need to know if the photo is genuine first? But if it is Adam may not be sleeping to well?
Havent seen much comments from Adam for a while Rob.Do you think hes well enough?
-
I don't know Jane to be honest, the quality of the photos are so poor.
They certainly are! However, I think we may agree that they weren't those taken in the master bedroom at WHF. In those, she appears to have bled, as opposed to having been generally bloodied............and that's before we talk about the colour and style of the furniture!!!
-
They certainly are! However, I think we may agree that they weren't those taken in the master bedroom at WHF. In those, she appears to have bled, as opposed to having been generally bloodied............and that's before we talk about the colour and style of the furniture!!!
Do you think the photos in the master bedroom in which you say she appears to have bled look right?
Two quite large wounds, I would have expected a lot more spreading of blood? But I admit I am no expert!
-
Havent seen much comments from Adam for a while Rob.Do you think hes well enough?
I hope he is well Snow, perhaps he has joined the innocent camp but dos not want to admit it ;)
-
Do you think the photos in the master bedroom in which you say she appears to have bled look right?
Two quite large wounds, I would have expected a lot more spreading of blood? But I admit I am no expert!
Nor I! and there have been numerous theories offered regarding the wounds. However, I do feel they had to have been in quick succession. Had they not been, and she'd breathed out several times, she'd have aspirated blood in a different pattern from that which we see in the crime scene pictures, from which it appears that there had been bleeding into her throat and mouth which leaked/trickled out when she was moved.
-
Nor I! and there have been numerous theories offered regarding the wounds. However, I do feel they had to have been in quick succession. Had they not been, and she'd breathed out several times, she'd have aspirated blood in a different pattern from that which we see in the crime scene pictures, from which it appears that there had been bleeding into her throat and mouth which leaked/trickled out when she was moved.
She would have fallen back quickly, yet she just seems to have too much blood on her elsewhere? The photos in this post look more like what I would have expected? But we need to know if they are genuine?
-
She would have fallen back quickly, yet she just seems to have too much blood on her elsewhere? The photos in this post look more like what I would have expected? But we need to know if they are genuine?
She'd have needed to have been sitting a long way from the bedside cabinet for her head to have ended up where it was. If you try sitting with you back propped against something solid and you fall to the side, your head and torso will be at right angles to your lower body and legs. She may well have died in an awkward/suicide impossible position, and moved to make it look like suicide.
-
One of the " drop " earrings was found in her nightdress, the other was found in the kitchen near a spent bullet case. Sheila DID struggle with her father ! Also the right ear had been swollen due to the earring having been ripped out.
EP had never acknowledged moving the earring from the scene, instead they hid its existence from the defence at trial.
-
One of the " drop " earrings was found in her nightdress, the other was found in the kitchen near a spent bullet case. Sheila DID struggle with her father ! Also the right ear had been swollen due to the earring having been ripped out.
EP had never acknowledged moving the earring from the scene, instead they hid its existence from the defence at trial.
Lookout, I think you may be referring to two different objects. The item in kitchen is more like a stud?
-
Lookout, I think you may be referring to two different objects. The item in kitchen is more like a stud?
Whatever it is/ was, it's documented as an earring Roch.
-
Documentation which has come to light.
-
Lookout, I think you may be referring to two different objects. The item in kitchen is more like a stud?
Earring stud.
-
I hope he is well Snow, perhaps he has joined the innocent camp but dos not want to admit it ;)
Funnily enough,that did cross my mind Rob.
-
How is this for a thought? If it not the mortuary where is it? Have you noticed that the very striking blood flow from her right eye is not visible? Is it possible that they put her on something like a blanket and moved her to a place for a clean up? Perhaps a shower or washroom was used and this is why we cannot identify the location.
Once she was ready and staged on the bath mat it would not have taken much movement of her head to create fresh streams of blood because of the pooled blood in her neck and throat.
Something like this would mean the blood would look wet and not congealed and her hair would look wet.
-
If the photo was taken at the crime scene,that must be a necklace around Sheilas neck.Is there any documentation of such an item being found.
-
If the photo was taken at the crime scene,that must be a necklace around Sheilas neck.Is there any documentation of such an item being found.
In the bloodied pictures, there's too much going on, by way of material at her neck, to discern a fine chain. However, it must have been there because a chain is visible in the xrays.
-
In the bloodied pictures, there's too much going on, by way of material at her neck, to discern a fine chain. However, it must have been there because a chain is visible in the xrays.
Hi Jane,hope your well today.Yes,but i dont mean the thin chain,i mean the yellow/gold looking items joined by the white looking part with the holes in it.
-
Hi Jane,hope your well today.Yes,but i dont mean the thin chain,i mean the yellow/gold looking items joined by the white looking part with the holes in it.
Think we're seeing very different things, Snow.
-
Think we're seeing very different things, Snow.
Just imagine a heavy gold coloured tubular necklace joined by a two inch clasp of some sort.Once you have that image in your mind Jane,sit back and look at the photo again.Hopefully you will see what i am referring to.There IS something round Sheilas neck.
-
How is this for a thought? If it not the mortuary where is it? Have you noticed that the very striking blood flow from her right eye is not visible? Is it possible that they put her on something like a blanket and moved her to a place for a clean up? Perhaps a shower or washroom was used and this is why we cannot identify the location.
Once she was ready and staged on the bath mat it would not have taken much movement of her head to create fresh streams of blood because of the pooled blood in her neck and throat.
Something like this would mean the blood would look wet and not congealed and her hair would look wet.
You can also see why so many people thought only one shot killed SC, assuming the photo is genuine and is before the cleaned up photos?
-
On page 1 of the case related photos,scroll down to image MB2.This photo shows the wardrobe door open next to the fire surround in the main bedroom.On the floor of the wardrobe is a black mat of some sort.On all the other photos the door is shut.A possible place Sheila was shot and found? Also ,if you use your eyes,you can clearly see a relief pattern of a large asrerisk shape and then a flower shape,on the white area above Sheilas head.This should help pin point where the photo was taken.
-
Because Sheilas head is against a patterned object of some kind,would it be safe to say the photo WAS taken at the crime scene?
-
And not the morgue.
-
And not the morgue.
I am trying to be open minded but don't think they were taken at the morgue? if they were they would be part of a full set of before and after washed etc.
-
Because Sheilas head is against a patterned object of some kind,would it be safe to say the photo WAS taken at the crime scene?
There was a flower patterned eiderdown on the bed. At some point it seems to have ended up on the floor. As far as what was round Sheila's neck, all I can see is a thin gold chain which is either a choker -that would be 16 inches- or it's of longer length -18 inches?- and whatever pendent was attached to it had fallen to the back of her neck, causing the chain to look shorter.
-
I am trying to be open minded but don't think they were taken at the morgue? if they were they would be part of a full set of before and after washed etc.
Rob, we haven't necessarily got all the pictures. Indeed, there's no reason why we should have.
-
I am trying to be open minded but don't think they were taken at the morgue? if they were they would be part of a full set of before and after washed etc.
Yes,i am agreeing with you Rob,that they were not taken at the morgue,that is what i have said.
-
There was a flower patterned eiderdown on the bed. At some point it seems to have ended up on the floor. As far as what was round Sheila's neck, all I can see is a thin gold chain which is either a choker -that would be 16 inches- or it's of longer length -18 inches?- and whatever pendent was attached to it had fallen to the back of her neck, causing the chain to look shorter.
Hi Jane,are you still looking at the photo on page 16 of this thread.The thin chain is not visible on this photo.Do you see the relief patterns?
-
Hi Jane,are you still looking at the photo on page 16 of this thread.The thin chain is not visible on this photo.Do you see the relief patterns?
I know it isn't. I've already posted that there's too much stuff going on by way of nightdress material at her neck to see anything round her neck.
-
Documentation which has come to light.
Are you saying that the documentation claims her to have been wearing drop earrings that night?
-
I know it isn't. I've already posted that there's too much stuff going on by way of nightdress material at her neck to see anything round her neck.
Sorry Jane,it may be that what you are interpreting as nightdress material,i am seeing as an object around Sheilas neck.What i see is a yellow tubular length of material under her right ear which is attatched or possibly looped through a white object.The white object,which may be metal and has holes either end,continues to the front of her neck.At the end of the metal object,it joins on to another section of yellow material which goes round her throat and disappears round the left side.It may look like this is simply part of her neck,but to me it is a distinctively different colour,and looks tubular.I dont know if anyone else agrees with this or not,i think Rob does.Anyway,see what you think Jane.
-
Having looked around I think these pictures may be in her bedroom. If you look at the top right hand corner of the lower picture it looks 'Greenish and very like the corner pattern of the very large rug in SC's bedroom.
-
Having looked around I think these pictures may be in her bedroom. If you look at the top right hand corner of the lower picture it looks 'Greenish and very like the corner pattern of the very large rug in SC's bedroom.
Hi Bubo,hope your well.Will check this out,i noticed Sheilas bedroom floor also has a black floor around the edges,next to the skirting.Oh,one other thing Bubo,you and Rob keep saying pictures,i think its the same picture turned round
-
Having looked around I think these pictures may be in her bedroom. If you look at the top right hand corner of the lower picture it looks 'Greenish and very like the corner pattern of the very large rug in SC's bedroom.
Personally,i dont think the black area can be the large rug in Sheilas bedroom,her head is too close to the wall.However it may be the black coloured part of the floor between the rug and the skirting boards.The white part next to her shoulder may be the outside edge of the large rug.Do you see the yellow necklace like object round her neck and the pattern on the area behind her head Bubo.
-
Having looked around I think these pictures may be in her bedroom. If you look at the top right hand corner of the lower picture it looks 'Greenish and very like the corner pattern of the very large rug in SC's bedroom.
If we assume these images are not fake whats your best guess as to what they are telling us? To me SC has already been moved prior to these photos being taken looking at her throat?
It looks like SC was cleaned up before the main crime scene photos were taken?
-
If we assume these images are not fake whats your best guess as to what they are telling us? To me SC has already been moved prior to these photos being taken looking at her throat?
It looks like SC was cleaned up before the main crime scene photos were taken?
It is tricky the pictures we have of her room are all/mainly from one direction. Clearly she has been moved by the time these pictures were taken. But we cannot see between the beds or the far side of her bed so its all guesswork as to what such pictures might show. It is possible that she used her bed to facilitate her shot. She could have slumped back on the bed, fallen between the beds or the far side. I find the red item by her pillow curious. What is it? What may it be hiding? DB said he took photos from all four corners of the rooms. We do not have them all.
How or where she was tidied up is another series of guesses but if she did die here she must have been moved at least once.
-
How could Vanezis have passed Sheila off as clean ??
-
But the question should be,why did they have to move Sheila at all,and clean her up.Whose scenario are we looking at here.Can someone give a brief outline of what happened and why Sheila HAD to be moved.
-
But the question should be,why did they have to move Sheila at all,and clean her up.Whose scenario are we looking at here.Can someone give a brief outline of what happened and why Sheila HAD to be moved.
My scenario allows for SC to be moved to the main bedroom. The large stain/pooling of blood where SC was placed could only be covered by her body. There is no staining/pooling of blood by June which given that she received two head shots begs the question 'where is the blood'? There should surely be a pool around her head. They had to clean her up to make it look as if she was the last to die.
-
My scenario allows for SC to be moved to the main bedroom. The large stain/pooling of blood where SC was placed could only be covered by her body. There is no staining/pooling of blood by June which given that she received two head shots begs the question 'where is the blood'? There should surely be a pool around her head. They had to clean her up to make it look as if she was the last to die.
Yes,that all makes sense Bubo.
-
What does Vanezis say in his notes about Junes state of rigor mortis on 7/09/85,i cant read much of his writing.
-
I see from his statements,Vanezis writes down the time as 3.30.Is this when he started the autopsies,or the time he finished.Apparently rigor mortice sets in between 2-4 hours on average,and rigor mortis is WELL established in 12 hrs.If he didnt start the examinations before 3.30,by the time he got through all the victims,rigor mortis would have been well established in all of them,even if some died after 3.30 the night before.So stating rigor mortis was well established on all the victems would be fact and dosent mean anything one way or another.Therefore the only evidence of when the victems died must come from the Doctor who pronounced death at the scene.I cant find the statement from this person in the archive.Can someone remind me who the Doctor was,and where his statement is?
-
Found it,Ian Donaldson Craig.Very basic statement.Seems to know a 22 rifle just by looking at it,strange overall statement,probably written at a much later date by the look of it.
-
Hello everyone,members,guests and anyone else browsing the forum.The Jeremy Bamber discussion seems to have been abandoned at the moment,the current war in Europe seems to be of more interest to most membersSo i am afraid i will have to take the oppertunity to tell a short story from my past.I work in the building trade,and one of the guys who worked in the same squad only ever had sardine sandwiches and a small half litre flask of tea in his lunch bag every day.By tea break in the afternoon he had no tea left,and just the heel or end piece of a loaf left.Dry bread again he would exclaim.I would often give him a biscuit and some of my tea,but the trouble was he liked strong black tea.My tea was weaker and had milk in it,so he called it gnats piss,theres gratitude for you.But i still continued to give him some,and he always took it.The same guy used to roll his own cigarettes,but he used so little tobacco in them the papers went up in a blaze when lit.He was left with very little of his cigarette to smoke.I think he was a bit mean.He often used to say-three score and ten,that will do me- referring to the Bible.I often wonder if hes still alive,he must be over 80 by now.Oh well they were happy times.Hope i havent bored you too much,bye for now.
-
Nice story Snow, several times now I have thought you quite religious?
-
Nice story Snow, several times now I have thought you quite religious?
It was my work mate who was quoting the Bible Rob,not me.As for myself,i would not say i am religious as far as praying to a so called God goes,but i do believe we are going somewhere when we pass away.As far as i am concerned you have to believe that,or life is pointless.And believe it or not i have some proof.Anyway ,now you have mentioned religion,i may have to give a rant about that too,if interest in the war in Ukraine keeps members interested elsewhere on the forum.
-
Interesting Snow, if you believe we go somewhere when we pass that's religious to me anyway. Myself I cannot see how life can get going, the simplest life form is thought to need 250000 bases of DNA. I think life had a helping hand!
-
Interesting Snow, if you believe we go somewhere when we pass that's religious to me anyway. Myself I cannot see how life can get going, the simplest life form is thought to need 250000 bases of DNA. I think life had a helping hand!
Of course life got a helping hand Rob.It all started with the so called big bang.As i always say to people,how did the big bang know what it would need to form a universe and planets,and once planets and life appeared,where did thought appear from.Is thought and perception formed from DNA, Anyway if everything came out of the big bang,thought was in there at the beginning too,waiting to be formed millions of years later.I wonder where and when the first logical thought was formed.Was this in some ancient animal once DNA had created a brain.I think somesort of intelligence new what materials were needed to form the universe ,then initiated the big bang.Another thing,remember we are spinning round the sun,and nothing can survive on this planet without its heat and light.I would like to think some form of intelligence is maintaining this orbit for us.For me it is too precarious a situation to be maintained without a little help and intervention.On the other hand many believe everything happened by chance,and when we die we are just food for the worms.That is fair enough,have that view if you wish.But it makes it a lot harder when your time comes.Anyway if you think things through ,i think the only conclusion is things simply could not have happened by chance.Oh well thats a quick rant about the entire cosmos and creation,hope i havent disturbed anyone,blame Rob it was him that got me started.Bye.
-
Good day everyone,back to the bloodied photo of Sheila.Has anything ever come to light suggesting Sheila may have attempted to hang herself before using the rifle.I mean what IS that round her neck.It looks more like a length of yellow rope or possibly a fancy ladies belt of some sort.And the object holding the two ends together looks too large for a normal necklace clasp.It looks more like a coat hook or something.Could it be possible,Sheila attached a belt or rope to a hook of some kind in the wardrobe.But then her weight instantly pulled the hook off before the rope caused any mark around her neck.So then she was forced to turn the gun on herself instead.There is definatelly something round her neck,so if it isnt a necklace or object to harm herself,it must be something the police applied or the Doctor at the morgue.Do the police use any device to seal the plastic sheets victims are wrapped in?Anyway,someone must know what the object is and its purpose.
-
Good day everyone,back to the bloodied photo of Sheila.Has anything ever come to light suggesting Sheila may have attempted to hang herself before using the rifle.I mean what IS that round her neck.It looks more like a length of yellow rope or possibly a fancy ladies belt of some sort.And the object holding the two ends together looks too large for a normal necklace clasp.It looks more like a coat hook or something.Could it be possible,Sheila attached a belt or rope to a hook of some kind in the wardrobe.But then her weight instantly pulled the hook off before the rope caused any mark around her neck.So then she was forced to turn the gun on herself instead.There is definatelly something round her neck,so if it isnt a necklace or object to harm herself,it must be something the police applied or the Doctor at the morgue.Do the police use any device to seal the plastic sheets victims are wrapped in?Anyway,someone must know what the object is and its purpose.
No replies to my suggestion.The members are all discussing the war and covid 19 today.Oh well i will just have to post another irrelevant post later on.Then the moderators will ban me for talking more nonsense that has nothing to do with the JB case.The hero members will cheer and say-thank god that lunatic is gone.Yes,they will all agree,what a moronic fool,but we showed him.We sent him to Coventry for his impertinent ludicrous posts.Then the news will break that Snow has suddenly dropped dead,brought on by lonliness after being banned from an online discussion site.The mood will then change,-what a great guy he was-the members will exclaim.Yes his posts were like poetry they will agree.Adam will post a tribute saying-i miss Snow so much,what a terrific guy he was=the tears rolling down his cheeks.Farewell dear friend he will anounce.The members will start a tribute topic entitled-Snow,the website Bard-and his posts will be studied and the meanings of them discussed by generations to come.Oh well,hope somebody replies soon.OR ELSE.Ha ha. bye
-
What does Vanezis say in his notes about Junes state of rigor mortis on 7/09/85,i cant read much of his writing.
I see June and the boys were not examined till 8/09/85
-
No replies to my suggestion.The members are all discussing the war and covid 19 today.Oh well i will just have to post another irrelevant post later on.Then the moderators will ban me for talking more nonsense that has nothing to do with the JB case.The hero members will cheer and say-thank god that lunatic is gone.Yes,they will all agree,what a moronic fool,but we showed him.We sent him to Coventry for his impertinent ludicrous posts.Then the news will break that Snow has suddenly dropped dead,brought on by lonliness after being banned from an online discussion site.The mood will then change,-what a great guy he was-the members will exclaim.Yes his posts were like poetry they will agree.Adam will post a tribute saying-i miss Snow so much,what a terrific guy he was=the tears rolling down his cheeks.Farewell dear friend he will anounce.The members will start a tribute topic entitled-Snow,the website Bard-and his posts will be studied and the meanings of them discussed by generations to come.Oh well,hope somebody replies soon.OR ELSE.Ha ha. bye
Do not worry Snow I am following what you say. It does look a bit like a belt. Part of the fire debris (DB2) contained pieces of scarf. There is something there that is not the chain or nightdress.
-
I have had a look in Photoshop, it might be a tag or label on a piece of string?
-
Do not worry Snow I am following what you say. It does look a bit like a belt. Part of the fire debris (DB2) contained pieces of scarf. There is something there that is not the chain or nightdress.
Thanks Bubo,yes of course there is something round her neck.That should be obvious to all.If there is no record of it,you are probably right in the assumption it was destroyed.Very suspicious to say the least.
-
I have had a look in Photoshop, it might be a tag or label on a piece of string?
Thanks Rob.So you think the white object with the holes in it is a tag,and is attached to yellow string round her neck.
-
Thanks Rob.So you think the white object with the holes in it is a tag,and is attached to yellow string round her neck.
I am not totally sure Snow but I think the object with holes in has a bit of string at one end connected to a label?
-
Dont you think the tag or whatever it is looks to be twisted together to join it nearest the front of the neck.Like metal coated in plastic and entwined to join the object together.It looks to be twisted together with one end sticking up and one down.To be honest the yellow pieces look too thick to be thread,they must be between 5-10mm .More like a strap or thick cord of somesort.Can you produce your enhanced photo Rob,if not maybe someone else can.
-
I am not totally sure Snow but I think the object with holes in has a bit of string at one end connected to a label?
By label,do you mean paper as opposed to metal or plastic Rob.
-
By label,do you mean paper as opposed to metal or plastic Rob.
I think the object with holes in Snow is attached to a label by string, probably paper but I could be totally wrong the image is so bad, but that is my best guess.
-
Ah,do you think its some sort of identity tag attached by the police Rob.Is that what you are getting at?
-
Ah,do you think its some sort of identity tag attached by the police Rob.Is that what you are getting at?
Yes that's what I think Snow, but others may disagree?
-
Does that take us back to the morgue,after the movement caused more bleeding?
-
Does that take us back to the morgue,after the movement caused more bleeding?
I think the picture was taken before SC was moved from WHF, not at the morgue. But the blood patterns are totally different to the SOC photos?
-
Does that take us back to the morgue,after the movement caused more bleeding?
Labels are always tied around the big toe in all the dramas I have seen. If they were going to move her it might be something to reduce further blood loss onto her nightdress.
-
Labels are always tied around the big toe in all the dramas I have seen. If they were going to move her it might be something to reduce further blood loss onto her nightdress.
Yes could be Bubo, do you think SC was cleaned up prior the the SOC photos? or was this after she had been moved?
-
One other thing.Woodcocks first statements say Hammersley put plastic bags over Sheilas head and hands.His COLP statement just says Sheila was parcelled up.The 2002 appeal says Sheilas hands and FEET were put in plastic bags.So maybe her head was not covered?
-
So what you both think[Rob,Bubo] is some sort of ligature was applied to stem the bleeding,then this photo was taken.Then it was decided to clean Sheila up,remove the ligature and take more photos.As opposed to the ligature being applied before they parcelled her up and transported her to the morgue,and the photo was not taken when she was first unwrapped at the morgue.Is that correct?
-
If that is a police ligature/tourniquet round Sheilas neck,there must be images somewhere on the web to compare it with.
-
A medical tourniquet seems to be made of flat material as opposed to circular or rope like.
-
Maybe you are nearer with an identity tag Rob.Have you given up on my hanging theory all together as a possibility?
-
Hi Roch,how are you today.Just a few thoughts.Its hard to know if that is the cabinet behind Sheila or not,due to the quality of the photo.Is it possible it WAS taken at the morgue.I mean once Sheila was moved after being wrapped in plastic,could the movement have forced more blood out of her mouth and smeared all over her face by the movement of the plastic bag.I dont know what an autopsy table looks like,but the image seems to show a blackish section above her head and a very bright section by her shoulder.How long would blood remain liquid after death.If Sheila died about 3.00 and she was moved at about 11.15 would it still run eight hours later.If she died about 7.45,that would just be three and a half hours before she was moved.Any thoughts Roch.
Apologies I did not properly respond to this. Would blood have still been wet, in order to smear as depicted in the image? Good question.
-
Apologies I did not properly respond to this. Would blood have still been wet, in order to smear as depicted in the image? Good question.
Do you think it was taken at the house or the morgue Roch?
-
Do you think it was taken at the house or the morgue Roch?
Hello Snow. It might help if David would answer the question I asked him further up. Jane gave her opinion. I just need to know exactly what precludes the thing behind her head from being the cabinet.
-
Hello Snow. It might help if David would answer the question I asked him further up. Jane gave her opinion. I just need to know exactly what precludes the thing behind her head from being the cabinet.
In my opinion it is not the cabinet,for two reasons.Firstly,the bottom edge of the object is too near the floor,and second,none of the bedside cabinets appear to have patterns on them.If you stare at the object for a few seconds you can clearly see an asterisk shape and a flower shape.This could be more like a patterned bed cover as Jane suggested.But it could also be some other piece of furniature with a pattern.Do you see the patterns Roch?
-
Look at image MS12 on page2 of the crime scene photos Roch,there is NO pattern on the front of this bedside cabinet.
-
Someone will simply have to go to Whitehouse farm and search the house till they find the pattern relating to the photo,and bingo,that is where the photo was taken.Any volunteers?
-
Everyone,google how many miles you are from WHF, nearest goes.Ha ha.
-
Just climb in any window,and if your caught leap out of another and slam shut.No problem.
-
Maybe you are nearer with an identity tag Rob.Have you given up on my hanging theory all together as a possibility?
I think its a tag Snow with what looks like string at one end, but I am not being dogmatic about it, the image is so poor!
I have increased the pixel size of the image 6 times and sharpened etc. and it is still difficult to be certain, but as Bubo says its a strange place to put a tag?
-
Hello everyone,including guests and casual browsers.Welcome to the Snow Show.I have been left in charge of this discussion site.[well,in my own mind at least]The grown up members are discussing more important topics elsewhere.Things like the war in Europe,covid19 and censorship.So let me take this oppertunity to talk to any children out there,and explain why wars happen.Wars happen because we are living on a lump of rock that can be referred to as Planet of the morons.The way it functions is,half the money the governments take in from taxation they use to build roads,rail networks,bridges,sports stadiums,hospitals etc.Most of the money that is left overthey spend on tanks,planes,warships,nuclear subs, bombs and artillery.Then from time to time for no logical reason or through telling lies,a country starts a war and destroys the infrastructure of another country and may get their own buildings destroyed in retaliation.The price of oil goes up and people freeze to death.The war causea more greenhouse gasses and the seas rise a little more,causing more destruction and homelessness.Often wars are started in the name of freedom,yet if the oceons continue to rise,the only freedom we will have will be to float about on the oceons.Now you can see why this is the Planet of the morons children,because we vote in governments to destroy it.So take my advice,if you see a spaceship land,run over to it and jump in.With a bit of luck it may take you to a planet far far away,called the Planet of common sense.For there is one thing for sure,if you dont already know,sooner or later you will discover you realy are living on the Planet of the morons.Bye for now kids.
-
I think its a tag Snow with what looks like string at one end, but I am not being dogmatic about it, the image is so poor!
I have increased the pixel size of the image 6 times and sharpened etc. and it is still difficult to be certain, but as Bubo says its a strange place to put a tag?
Hi Rob,how are you today.I have just finished my latest rant as you can see.So back to the photo,as i have been asking Roch and others,apart from the item round Sheilas neck,can you make out the pattern on the white area behind her.An asterisk and a flower shape.Do you see them?
-
De Stafano left the scene long before the images were sold to the CT. He had no access to them.
"Sold"?
-
"Sold"?
Have you watched the Devil's Advocate documentary that's just come out about GDS? I found it thoroughly entertaining and a real eye opener. Though, a caveat is that he didn't take part in it, so obviously, it is biased.
-
"Sold"?
Sold, as in charged about £3k for them
-
Sold, as in charged about £3k for them
Who sold them?
-
Have you watched the Devil's Advocate documentary that's just come out about GDS? I found it thoroughly entertaining and a real eye opener. Though, a caveat is that he didn't take part in it, so obviously, it is biased.
No I haven't. Where can I find it?
-
No I haven't. Where can I find it?
Sky Documentaries
-
Hi Rob,how are you today.I have just finished my latest rant as you can see.So back to the photo,as i have been asking Roch and others,apart from the item round Sheilas neck,can you make out the pattern on the white area behind her.An asterisk and a flower shape.Do you see them?
Hi Snow, I am not sure if there is a pattern on the white area behind SC? What looks like a pattern could just be artifacts? I did try but the image is so poor.
-
Hi Snow, I am not sure if there is a pattern on the white area behind SC? What looks like a pattern could just be artifacts? I did try but the image is so poor.
Hi Rob,good to hear from you,i thought the photo discussion had been abandoned all together.I tried asking Mike where the photo came from and what his views on it were.But as yet i have received no reply.Anyway i clearly see the patterns,just look at the photos Roch posted on page16.Dont blow them up ,just sit back a few feet from your computer and stare at the white area for a few seconds.for want of a better description,an asterisk shape can be clearly defined on the left with a flower shape above Sheilas head.The flower shape is a circle with smaller circles or petals round about it.If it wasnt for this patterned area i would be inclined to think the photo was taken at the morgue.I believe i saw in the Dickinson report or somewhere that many pictures were taken there.Anyway,thats about all i can say regarding the photo at the moment,without any more info about it.Cheers Rob.
-
Does anyone know whether it was ever pinpointed, exactly where this image came from and exactly who it depicts?
Back to the bloodied picture that Roch posted on page 16 of the drop/pendant earring topic.It was decided that it was a photo of Sheila,but no one could pinpoint whether it was taken at the White House or at the morgue.Anyway,if you look at the photo titled Hallway 2,in the archives,the one with the rifle circled in red leaning against the bedroom window,a number of objects have appeared beside or on the two chairs.One of these objects looks like a white patterned folding mirror or something.What is the accepted opinion of what this item is,and where did it appear from? I cannot see anything like it in any of the other photos.It is too rigid an item to simply be a patterned sheet or something,and there is a pole or something running between the two sides of it,I just wondered what the object is,and if it is a possibility that this is the object in the bloodied photo because of the similar pattern.Any thoughts?
-
Anyway,all these items must have appeared from somewhere,there seems to be bed sheets an d some clothing draped over the chairs appart from the patterned object.And as you can see,other objects have appeared on the window sill,a black box or case and a shiny gold object.Of course the soco team would have had equipment with them as well as the doctor.But none of this stuff are in the other main bedroom photos.You could ask if these photos were taken much later when the crime scene was finished with,and objects were being cleared out,but if this is the case why take more photos at this stage,and why is June still lying on the floor?
-
Anyway,all these items must have appeared from somewhere,there seems to be bed sheets an d some clothing draped over the chairs appart from the patterned object.And as you can see,other objects have appeared on the window sill,a black box or case and a shiny gold object.Of course the soco team would have had equipment with them as well as the doctor.But none of this stuff are in the other main bedroom photos.You could ask if these photos were taken much later when the crime scene was finished with,and objects were being cleared out,but if this is the case why take more photos at this stage,and why is June still lying on the floor?
It is shown in other bedroom photos. I have discussed this with other members by pm. My best guess is a trouser press or a floor standing adjustable mirror. Given the Bedroom photos are of a drastically altered scene I do not think it of importance.
-
It is shown in other bedroom photos. I have discussed this with other members by pm. My best guess is a trouser press or a floor standing adjustable mirror. Given the Bedroom photos are of a drastically altered scene I do not think it of importance.
Good evening Bubo,hope your good.Isnt it important that they have taken objects probably from another room before they had finished taking photos.Obviously this not only alters the bedroom crime scene but also the room where they were taken from.Unless the items came out of the bedroom wardrobes,which are open in some photos and shut in others.Anyway why tamper with anything when the bodies are still in situ.
-
Anyway,Jeremy Bamber must know what the trouser press/mirror object actually is and where it was normally kept.Maybe the sudden appearance of the item in the bedroom along with the other things is in his latest submission,under tampering with the crime scene.
-
Hello casual browsers,as you can see the JB forum has been quiet for a few days.That is because the members are all sending each other PM's,yes thats private messages,oh yes they are all in different groups posting back and forth havering utter nonsense,claiming they have conclusively solved the case.None of them pm me however,they pretended i was welcome on the forum,when in reality they are calling me all the names under the sun behind my back Oh well never mind,let us talk among ourselves.What word do you think came in to my head the other day? It is a word i haven't heard for a long time for some reason.That word is 'gadgie',yes 'gadgie',it is a word i find amusing in my tiny little mind.It has different meanings around the country,but where i am it basically means geezer or someone who is slightly dodgy.I dont know what it means where you come from.I hope the word makes you smile too.Anyway thats the kind of thing you have to think about when no one pm's you.Well goodnight for now casual browsers and sleep well.
-
Hello casual browsers,as you can see the JB forum has been quiet for a few days.That is because the members are all sending each other PM's,yes thats private messages,oh yes they are all in different groups posting back and forth havering utter nonsense,claiming they have conclusively solved the case.None of them pm me however,they pretended i was welcome on the forum,when in reality they are calling me all the names under the sun behind my back Oh well never mind,let us talk among ourselves.
I have not been PMing anyone lately. :)
If the conspiracy nuts have gone underground, then they wont be publicly embarrassing themselves or this forum anymore. :)
-
I have not been PMing anyone lately. :)
If the conspiracy nuts have gone underground, then they wont be publicly embarrassing themselves or this forum anymore. :)
Good evening Dave,i myself at the moment dont know what to think.The two bodies in the kitchen may have been an honest mistake if it wasnt for the fact that there is written documentation that a further three bodies were found upstairs to corroborate the fact.This has never been explained satisfactorily as far as i can see,and if true you have to lean towards a conspiracy theory of sum sort,because the police knew Sheila was alive on entry.Obviously with this scenario the cover up would have been to hide the police failures.I am more inclined to think that through time and with pressure from the relatives the police,or at least some of them were convinced rightly or wrongly of JBs guilt.Although obviously one officer was convinced of his guilt from the start too,but only through JBs behaviour,nothing else.In the end i believe JB WAS framed for the murders with some of the police genuinely thinking he was 100 percent guilty while others still believed he was innocent.I trust you have read 'David Shaws,an innocent man',i think his account of events is quite good at showing how those involved conspired behind JBs back to bring him down.And shaw brings up things like the second damaged rifle that Davidson saw in the kitchen,which he spoke of in his colp interview,You can find refference to this in the colp transcript that Mike has posted in the Archive as you know.And there are many other things like the note from Sheilas room ,of which Davidson said he could not remember what was written,also the hand swabs combined with the plastic bags to make room for four extra bullets or casings,which is all documented.Anthony Partegers licence for his rifle apparantly being moved to his own adress just prior to the trajedy and so on.Anyway,i dont know what your stance is at the moment Dave,but with the amount of anomalies and dodgy suspicious things that have happened with the JB case,i will always have reasonable doubt unless he does confess some day.
-
Shaw's book is very biased.
The 3 bodies upstairs would have originally been reported after the police saw June & the twins. They then saw Sheila behind the bed a few moments later.
But appreciate this will be something supporters will always bring up.
-
Shaw's book is very biased.
The 3 bodies upstairs would have originally been reported after the police saw June & the twins. They then saw Sheila behind the bed a few moments later.
But appreciate this will be something supporters will always bring up.
Hi Adam,hope you are fine.You know that is not true,both Sheila and June were found before the twins.Of course Shaws draft is biased,but most of it CAN be backed up by factual documentation.
-
But like most,Shaw does not give a definitive reason why JB was framed in the end.
-
Hi Adam,hope you are fine.You know that is not true,both Sheila and June were found before the twins.Of course Shaws draft is biased,but most of it CAN be backed up by factual documentation.
How do you know?
-
But like most,Shaw does not give a definitive reason why JB was framed in the end.
It would be an industrial frame involving hundreds of people.
-
Good evening Dave,i myself at the moment dont know what to think.The two bodies in the kitchen may have been an honest mistake if it wasnt for the fact that there is written documentation that a further three bodies were found upstairs to corroborate the fact.This has never been explained satisfactorily as far as i can see,and if true you have to lean towards a conspiracy theory of sum sort,because the police knew Sheila was alive on entry.Obviously with this scenario the cover up would have been to hide the police failures.I am more inclined to think that through time and with pressure from the relatives the police,or at least some of them were convinced rightly or wrongly of JBs guilt.Although obviously one officer was convinced of his guilt from the start too,but only through JBs behaviour,nothing else.In the end i believe JB WAS framed for the murders with some of the police genuinely thinking he was 100 percent guilty while others still believed he was innocent.I trust you have read 'David Shaws,an innocent man',i think his account of events is quite good at showing how those involved conspired behind JBs back to bring him down.And shaw brings up things like the second damaged rifle that Davidson saw in the kitchen,which he spoke of in his colp interview,You can find refference to this in the colp transcript that Mike has posted in the Archive as you know.And there are many other things like the note from Sheilas room ,of which Davidson said he could not remember what was written,also the hand swabs combined with the plastic bags to make room for four extra bullets or casings,which is all documented.Anthony Partegers licence for his rifle apparantly being moved to his own adress just prior to the trajedy and so on.Anyway,i dont know what your stance is at the moment Dave,but with the amount of anomalies and dodgy suspicious things that have happened with the JB case,i will always have reasonable doubt unless he does confess some day.
There is no report of two bodies in the kitchen. Its been debunked time and time again.
-
Supporters take sections of a radio log transcript in isolation -
'Conversations with person inside WHF'.
'One female in kitchen'.
'One male in kitchen'.
'Three bodies upstairs'.
-
There is no report of two bodies in the kitchen. Its been debunked time and time again.
Has it been debunked Dave,didnt the log say 'two bodies found in kitchen UPON ENTRY' then a further three bodies found upstairs.
-
How do you know?
Its in the raid team statements the order in which they are found Adam.
-
It would be an industrial frame involving hundreds of people.
I dont think Shaw mentioned the two bodies in the kitchen Adam.I dont think he was suggesting an industrial frame,more a case of the relatives and the police ganging up on the wrong person,framing JB because they thought he was genuinely guilty.The biggest problem being an out of control officer determined to get JB by fair means or foul,with most turning a blind eye to the fact.
-
Hello casual browsers,as you can see the JB forum has been quiet for a few days.That is because the members are all sending each other PM's,yes thats private messages,oh yes they are all in different groups posting back and forth havering utter nonsense,claiming they have conclusively solved the case.None of them pm me however,they pretended i was welcome on the forum,when in reality they are calling me all the names under the sun behind my back Oh well never mind,let us talk among ourselves.What word do you think came in to my head the other day? It is a word i haven't heard for a long time for some reason.That word is 'gadgie',yes 'gadgie',it is a word i find amusing in my tiny little mind.It has different meanings around the country,but where i am it basically means geezer or someone who is slightly dodgy.I dont know what it means where you come from.I hope the word makes you smile too.Anyway thats the kind of thing you have to think about when no one pm's you.Well goodnight for now casual browsers and sleep well.
Hello again Guests and casual browsers,let us resume our discussion about the word 'gadgie' particularly in relation to Jeremy Bamber.It seems the word is rarely used in the Essex area or indeed much of the south of England.But we must remember that JB has been housed for a number of years in the north of England ,he now resides in HM prison Wakefield,and before that HM prison Full Sutton.Now surely many of the prison guards will be from the local area and will be using the word 'gadgie' on a regular basis.They may even refer to JB as the Whitehouse Farm gadgie.What do you think? imagine this,someone goes to visit JB and one prison officer shouts to another one,hoy! theres a gadgie here to visit that gadgie Jeremy Bamber.Indeed JB may have been up north for so long that he uses the word on a regular basis now.If you were a fly on the wall,you may hear him on the phone saying something like,'i get on very well with the gadgie in the next cell'.What do you think,would it be worth writing to him to enquire? If so you can write to JB at HM prison Wakefield,full adress is available on the official JB campaign site or can be found on some of the JB podcasts.Oh well,that ends our discussion about the word 'gadgie',hope you have enjoyed it and are not simply left bewildered.Anyway,bye for now guests and casual browsers,sleep well.
-
Its in the raid team statements the order in which they are found Adam.
You need to provide the source.
Do you think Sheila was in the kitchen still alive when the raid team entered WHF? I thought she wanted to commit murder/suicide.
-
You need to provide the source.
Do you think Sheila was in the kitchen still alive when the raid team entered WHF? I thought she wanted to commit murder/suicide.
Good day Adam.PC Delgado 7th Aug statement for one gives the order.June first then Crispy then Sheila, 'we then continued our search of the upstairs.On entering the childrens bedroom i saw the bodies of two male children both aged about 6 years'. So unless you add Crispy to the equation its hard to see where a three comes in to it.Unless we simply go by the logs,two bodies in kitchen 'UPON ENTRY' a further 'THREE' bodies upstairs.What do you think Adam?So do i believe Sheila was alive in the kitchen upon entry,i think its quite possible.
-
Good day Adam.PC Delgado 7th Aug statement for one gives the order.June first then Crispy then Sheila, 'we then continued our search of the upstairs.On entering the childrens bedroom i saw the bodies of two male children both aged about 6 years'. So unless you add Crispy to the equation its hard to see where a three comes in to it.Unless we simply go by the logs,two bodies in kitchen 'UPON ENTRY' a further 'THREE' bodies upstairs.What do you think Adam?So do i believe Sheila was alive in the kitchen upon entry,i think its quite possible.
What happened after the raid entered WHF. With Sheila in the kitchen, alive & fully fit?
-
What happened after the raid entered WHF. With Sheila in the kitchen, alive & fully fit?
I have no idea Adam,Mike thinks the raid team shot her,Bambergate thinks Sheila shot herself with the air rifle as the raid team entered,regained conciuosness and ran up the service stairs to shoot herself with the 22 rifle.Others will have different ideas.
-
I have no idea Adam,Mike thinks the raid team shot her,Bambergate thinks Sheila shot herself with the air rifle as the raid team entered,regained conciuosness and ran up the service stairs to shoot herself with the 22 rifle.Others will have different ideas.
You must have a scenario to match your opinion.
The blood evidence on Sheila's nightdress shows she did not stand up after the first shot. So would have to be fully fit in the kitchen.
-
You must have a scenario to match your opinion.
The blood evidence on Sheila's nightdress shows she did not stand up after the first shot. So would have to be fully fit in the kitchen.
Yes thats a good point Adam,unless the air rifle pellet didnt cause much damage and bleeding.A bit like your scenario for Nevill being shot in the main bedroom.Who knows Adam,who knows.
-
Yes thats a good point Adam,unless the air rifle pellet didnt cause much damage and bleeding.A bit like your scenario for Nevill being shot in the main bedroom.Who knows Adam,who knows.
If you follow the evidence, then you will know what happened.
-
If you follow the evidence, then you will know what happened.
Well according to Bob Wolfinden all the evidence you need is the phone moved from the bedroom to the kitchen and Bambers guilty.I do not agree with his evidence at all.Everyone sees the crime scene and the evidence differently Adam.
-
Well according to Bob Wolfinden all the evidence you need is the phone moved from the bedroom to the kitchen and Bambers guilty.I do not agree with his evidence at all.Everyone sees the crime scene and the evidence differently Adam.
And Bob Wofinden even got the phones moving wrong.
-
If you follow the evidence, then you will know what happened.
And if you follow Adams posts, you will know what didn't happen.
-
And if you follow Adams posts, you will know what didn't happen.
Well if you follow the crime scene evidence, it is a straight forward Bamber scenario.
Certainly not Nevill running downstairs to phone Jeremy after Sheila starts shooting the twins. As you claim.
-
And Bob Wofinden even got the phones moving wrong.
Hi Dave,what did happen with the phones? If i remember correctly Bob said JB took the kitchen phone off the hook disabling the bedroom phone before he started the shooting,then moved the bedroom phone to the kitchen.So he claimed Sheila would not have been bothered about moving phones about,or something like that.But it isnt nearly as simple as that when you look at the phone issue.If i am wrong,please correct me before i comment further on this topic further.
-
You need to provide the source.
Do you think Sheila was in the kitchen still alive when the raid team entered WHF? I thought she wanted to commit murder/suicide.
Playing games again Adam? try PC Collins statement sheets 2 and 3.
I thought you followed the evidence? surely you know the two adults were found before the children?
-
Playing games again Adam? try PC Collins statement sheets 2 and 3.
I thought you followed the evidence? surely you know the two adults were found before the children?
Not playing games.
Please provide the link. Standard forum procedure.
-
Hi Dave,what did happen with the phones? If i remember correctly Bob said JB took the kitchen phone off the hook disabling the bedroom phone before he started the shooting,then moved the bedroom phone to the kitchen.So he claimed Sheila would not have been bothered about moving phones about,or something like that.But it isnt nearly as simple as that when you look at the phone issue.If i am wrong,please correct me before i comment further on this topic further.
That could be what happened.
Bamber would not be expecting Nevill or June to wake prior to him entering the bedroom (they didn't). However better safe than sorry & disabling all phones was easy.
The bedroom phone was put in the kitchen & left off the hook. To explain Nevill in the kitchen.
The working kitchen phone unplugged and put under magazines.
-
That could be what happened.
Bamber would not be expecting Nevill or June to wake prior to him entering the bedroom (they didn't). However better safe than sorry & disabling all phones was easy.
The bedroom phone was put in the kitchen & left off the hook. To explain Nevill in the kitchen.
The working kitchen phone unplugged and put under magazines.
But there was no logic in moving the bedroom phone at all Adam,all he had to do was plug in the kitchen phone again.Explain again why he moved the bedroom phone to the kitchen .
-
But there was no logic in moving the bedroom phone at all Adam,all he had to do was plug in the kitchen phone again.Explain again why he moved the bedroom phone to the kitchen .
The kitchen phone was plugged in. Bamber unplugged it & put it under magazines.
The bedroom phone was taken downstairs, plugged in and taken off the hook.
All this was to explain why Nevill was downstairs & why Nevill/June did not phone Bamber from upstairs.
-
Hi Dave,what did happen with the phones? If i remember correctly Bob said JB took the kitchen phone off the hook disabling the bedroom phone before he started the shooting,then moved the bedroom phone to the kitchen.So he claimed Sheila would not have been bothered about moving phones about,or something like that.But it isnt nearly as simple as that when you look at the phone issue.If i am wrong,please correct me before i comment further on this topic further.
The phone Woffindumb though was moved on the night of the shooting, was already in the kitchen days before the shooting. Read the statements of DOUGLAS JOHN PIKE in the archive.
-
He passed away a few years ago. I always thought his conversion to guilt was a bit strange.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/may/11/bob-woffinden-obituary
-
The phone Woffindumb though was moved on the night of the shooting, was already in the kitchen days before the shooting. Read the statements of DOUGLAS JOHN PIKE in the archive.
'Days before'.
Why would Nevill/June not put the bedroom phone in....the bedroom?
The kitchen phone was working.
-
The kitchen phone was plugged in. Bamber unplugged it & put it under magazines.
The bedroom phone was taken downstairs, plugged in and taken off the hook.
All this was to explain why Nevill was downstairs & why June did not phone the police from upstairs.
This is not the way i see it Adam.If the kitchen phone was off the hook no one could use the bedroom phone,so no fear of June or anyone else making a phone call.But lets start at the beginning.You say everyone was in bed when JB entered the house and he intended a silent massacre before Nev/June and the twins woke up.If this was his plan,moving the bedroom phone was not in his original plan.Indeed it was unlikely he planned a phone call from Nevill at all,because if Nevill and June were curled up in bed when they were shot,obviously the police would know a phone call was not possible,because it would be obvious that they were shot as they slept.So,you say the bedroom phone was moved to the kitchen because it is claimed ,IF the phone was in the bedroom Nevill would have tried to use it.But this is illogical garbage.For heavens sake,someone being shot at,is not going to reach for the bedside phone and try to make a call,nonsense.YOU, yourself have Nevill exiting the room in ten seconds Adam,so no thought of making a call whether the phone was there or not.And it would have been no surprise to the police that Nevill fled the bedroom to escape a hail of bullets,and ended up phoning from the kitchen.Totally logical.So,to say would have phoned from the bedroom if the phone was there is utter lunacy.And not only that,to claim that JB tried to hide the kitchen phone and make it blatantly obvious that someone was staging the phones is again utter stupidity,who on earth would be so stupid,comical.No,no matter where Nevill ended up,it made no sense whatsoever to move the bedroom phone.Disable it yes,but move it to the kitchen,rubbish.If the police found a phone on the bedside cabinet in the main bedroom they wouldnt have batted an eye lid under the circumstances,NO ONE would.Obviously it is true what was said about the phones playing up,and the bedroom phone was already in the kitchen pre massacre.The original kitchen phone either innocently or otherwise getting covered with magazines.So,to my mind the moving of the bedroom phone means nothing and in no way whatsoever incriminates JB.Think it through.
-
This is not the way i see it Adam.If the kitchen phone was off the hook no one could use the bedroom phone,so no fear of June or anyone else making a phone call.But lets start at the beginning.You say everyone was in bed when JB entered the house and he intended a silent massacre before Nev/June and the twins woke up.If this was his plan,moving the bedroom phone was not in his original plan.Indeed it was unlikely he planned a phone call from Nevill at all,because if Nevill and June were curled up in bed when they were shot,obviously the police would know a phone call was not possible,because it would be obvious that they were shot as they slept.So,you say the bedroom phone was moved to the kitchen because it is claimed ,IF the phone was in the bedroom Nevill would have tried to use it.But this is illogical garbage.For heavens sake,someone being shot at,is not going to reach for the bedside phone and try to make a call,nonsense.YOU, yourself have Nevill exiting the room in ten seconds Adam,so no thought of making a call whether the phone was there or not.And it would have been no surprise to the police that Nevill fled the bedroom to escape a hail of bullets,and ended up phoning from the kitchen.Totally logical.So,to say would have phoned from the bedroom if the phone was there is utter lunacy.And not only that,to claim that JB tried to hide the kitchen phone and make it blatantly obvious that someone was staging the phones is again utter stupidity,who on earth would be so stupid,comical.No,no matter where Nevill ended up,it made no sense whatsoever to move the bedroom phone.Disable it yes,but move it to the kitchen,rubbish.If the police found a phone on the bedside cabinet in the main bedroom they wouldnt have batted an eye lid under the circumstances,NO ONE would.Obviously it is true what was said about the phones playing up,and the bedroom phone was already in the kitchen pre massacre.The original kitchen phone either innocently or otherwise getting covered with magazines.So,to my mind the moving of the bedroom phone means nothing and in no way whatsoever incriminates JB.Think it through.
Have always said Bamber's plan was to take the bedroom phone off the hook.
Ideally Nevill stumbled around in the bedroom before dying there. As June did.
When Nevill went downstairs. So did the bedroom phone.
-
Have always said Bamber's plan was to take the bedroom phone off the hook.
Ideally Nevill stumbled around in the bedroom before dying there. As June did.
When Nevill went downstairs. So did the bedroom phone.
As far as i can see,there was no logic to moving the bedroom phone to the kitchen simply becaues Nevill ended up there Adam none.Anyway,it was obviously already in the kitchen,so just another red herring from the police.End of story as far as i can see.
-
As far as i can see,there was no logic to moving the bedroom phone to the kitchen simply becaues Nevill ended up there Adam none.Anyway,it was obviously already in the kitchen,so just another red herring from the police.End of story as far as i can see.
Were you there.
As already said, the bedroom phone was moved downstairs to justify why Nevill was downstairs.
However a possibility both phones were in the kitchen.
-
Were you there.
As already said, the bedroom phone was moved downstairs to justify why Nevill was downstairs.
However a possibility both phones were in the kitchen.
Were you there, Adam ??
-
Were you there.
As already said, the bedroom phone was moved downstairs to justify why Nevill was downstairs.
However a possibility both phones were in the kitchen.
I believe this 'moving phones' theory is totally wrong. It's just another red herring thrown up by Essex Police and the prosecution. If you examine the evidence, especially statements, you will realise it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
Accordingly to a statement by Jean Bouttell dated 16th. December 1985, there were four telephones and four telephone points in the house.
The phones:
The cream rotary dial phone in the main bedroom.
A fawn-coloured digital phone in the main kitchen.
A cordless phone also in the main kitchen.
A blue digital phone in the upstairs office.
The telephone points:
In the ground floor sitting room.
In the drinks cupboard along the main hallway between the main kitchen and sitting room.
In the main bedroom, on the left of the bed (nearest the boxroom).
In the first floor office.
Bouttell states that the telephone point in the drinks cupboard was always used to plug in the telephone in the kitchen.
About the phones, she states:
The blue digital phone was never moved from the first floor office.
The fawn-coloured phone was always kept in the kitchen, just beneath the hatch to the drinks cupboard.
The cream dial phone was always in the main bedroom.
The cordless phone was Nevill's.
She mentions nothing about the phones being moved around, yet in the same statement she goes on to say that she cannot remember what the position of the phones was when she visited on 5th. August, and did not notice the position of the phones until 23rd. August, when she found a phone under the magazines in the kitchen. She handed it to Barbara Wilson in the upstairs office.
About the phone in the magazines, Bouttell cannot confirm it was the fawn-coloured phone. She only deduces this later when she notices that the fawn-coloured phone is not in its usual position in the same kitchen and the cream rotary dial phone is there, instead of in the main bedroom.
She asks Jeremy about this later that day and he says the phone she found under the magazines is a spare and she should leave it in the office - which she thinks is odd, as she had not noticed a spare phone before. Jeremy also told her that the usual kitchen phone, the fawn-coloured digital phone, had gone wrong and that is why the rotary dial phone was in the kitchen.
Bouttell confirms she subsequently used a phone that she believes was the same one as that found under the magazines, and she reports it was in perfect working order. She is "almost sure" it is the very same fawn-coloured phone as that once used in the main kitchen.
If we now turn to Douglas Pike's statement of 19th. September 1985, he refers to taking away a cordless phone on 5th. August 1985. If that is the case, and if we assume that the fawn-coloured phone was not a cordless model, then this seems to contradict what Jeremy told Bouttell, though at the same time, it does seem strange that Jean Bouttell cannot recall the position of the phones on that same date, which was her last visit before the shootings.
So far, we have facts that tell us that the theory Jeremy moved the phones around is groundless. Bouttell can't even be sure of what phone she found or later used, but let's give her the benefit of the doubt in that respect and say she was right, it was the fawn-coloured phone normally seen in the kitchen. That being so, it appears, as Bouttell says, Jeremy did indeed give an odd explanation for the fawn-coloured phone being found in such a strange place - under magazines - but that in itself confirms nothing since:
(a). Jeremy himself can hardly be expected to account for the telephones in somebody else's house, and he may simply have been confused - just as Bouttell was; and,
(b). Bouttell affirms that the kitchen is where the fawn-coloured phone would normally be found anyway, while Douglas Pike confirms that the rotary dial phone was already downstairs before the shootings. This implies that there was no phone in the main bedroom on 6th. August 1985, since the Bambers would not put the fawn-coloured digital phone in the main bedroom in place of the rotary dial phone that was working fine. And Jeremy would hardly do this.
We ought to be able to stop there and dismiss the whole thing. Like Walletgate, it's plainly a load of rubbish.
However, there is more to say.
First, the Campaign Team give an account of all this that, ironically, weakens Jeremy's position. They claim that at the trial Jean Bouttell gave evidence that:
"...the phones had gone wrong so many times in the past year that she described it as “musical phones..."
Source: https://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/telephones
That would seem on its face to give life to the prosecution theory in the eyes of the desperate. Who knows? Maybe the fawn-coloured phone was in the bedroom after all? (As an aside, the Campaign Team also allege that Ainsley contradicted the evidence by stating in his Interim Report to the DPP that the fawn-coloured phone was also found on the upstairs office shelf, but I disagree. I think Ainsley simply confused the discovery of phones on the morning of 7th. August with the later discovery of a phone handed by Jean Bouttell to Barbara Wilson).
I don't have Bouttell's trial evidence, so I can't confirm if she really did talk at the trial about 'musical phones', but if she did, it seems a bit inconsistent with what she told the police in her statement of 12th. December 1985.
Let's give the prosecution the benefit of this and - just as an exercise - assume that there was a fawn-coloured phone in the main bedroom, maybe because the phones were moved around. If, just to cover things, we're making this assumption, then I agree that we should ask why it was moved and when.
There are three possibilities:
(i). Jeremy moved the main bedroom phone before the incident.
(ii). Jeremy moved the main bedroom phone after the incident.
(iii). Somebody else moved the phone (and this would be without Jeremy's knowledge, as he has never mentioned it).
Possibility (i) seems unlikely as it would be noticed and Jeremy would anticipate this.
Nobody here can comment on possibility (iii) as we have no way of knowing when it was moved and why, and nor can Jeremy it seems. And there would be no reason for him to know, unless he is guilty.
Possibility (ii) has five problems:
First, Douglas Pike in his statement of 19th. September 1985 confirms that the phone taken for repair was a cordless phone. He also states that the cordless phone came with a two-way adaptor and he removed this adaptor when he left on the 5th. August 1985. Now please refer back to Jean Bouttell's statement of 12th. December 1985, in which you will see she does not specify a location for the cordless phone, only that Nevill used it, but states that the fawn-coloured phone was usually in the kitchen. The rotary dial phone was then found by police in the main kitchen on the morning of 7th. August 1985, and that was the same phone as the one seen in the kitchen (again, see Douglas Pike's statement of 19th. September 1985). All that being the case, we must ask not why Jeremy swopped the phones round, but why Nevill or June did so at all. Why would the fawn-coloured phone be put in the bedroom and the rotary dial phone put downstairs? That simply makes no sense. Surely Nevill or June would keep the rotary dial phone in the bedroom and leave the fawn-coloured phone in the kitchen? In other words, they would do nothing, with the result that Jeremy would be hiding the rotary dial phone under magazines, yet that is not the phone that Bouttell found.
Second, Jeremy would have stalled the line in such circumstances by lifting the kitchen phone off its receiver, rendering the upstairs phone inoperable.
Third, if - as Adam and the prosecution claim - Nevill was being shot in the bedroom, nobody would expect him or June to be sat at the bedroom phone trying to get hold of the police, assuming they could even get a line. As I think Snow has pointed out, the police would not at all have been surprised in such circumstances to find a phone in the main bedroom left unused.
Fourth, the phone under the magazines was found to be working. If Jeremy is guilty, he would know that there was a possibility that the police would not accept a murder-suicide scenario at face value and there might be further police inquiries immediately on discovering the bodies. You are suggesting he 'hid' the phone where it could easily be discovered by sceptical police officers, and in a strange place. Who puts a working phone under magazines? It seems unlikely to me.
-
'The cream dial phone was always in the main bedroom'
----------
Not always. It was off the hook next to Nevill in the kitchen when the raid team entered.
The working kitchen phone underneath a pile of magazines. Why? Is anyone's guess.
-
'The cream dial phone was always in the main bedroom'
----------
Not always. It was off the hook next to Nevill in the kitchen when the raid team entered.
The working kitchen phone underneath a pile of magazines. Why? Is anyone's guess.
Adam, may I ask that, before you comment further, could you please take the time to carefully read through the entire post, then think about what I am saying.
Thank you.
-
Adam, may I ask that, before you comment further, could you please take the time to carefully read through the entire post, then think about what I am saying.
Thank you.
I quoted a sentence you posted.
Thank you.
-
I quoted a sentence you posted.
Thank you.
You are free to do whatever you like. You can criticise or praise what I say, as you please, or say nothing at all. What I don't want is this nonsense where you post single sentences over and over again, and which you also take out of context.
-
You are free to do whatever you like. You can criticise or praise what I say, as you please, or say nothing at all. What I don't want is this nonsense where you post single sentences over and over again, and which you also take out of context.
I quoted one sentence. Which you posted.
An important one as Jean Boutell says the cream phone was always in the bedroom.
-
Re: #423
June was known to be a light sleeper. Jeremy had to disable the kitchen telephone before she heard a noise and was anxious enough to call police. He probably didn't know the location of Neville, who could have been dozing on the settee in the lounge following a long day's harvesting and would only need to shout up to June to telephone for help should he hear an intruder.
The significance of Douglas Pike is that he took away the cordless telephone for repair. Nevill therefore has to rely on the landline to summon assistance.
Jeremy knew full well the location of all the telephones at White House Farm. It had been his home for over twenty years and he was a snooper to boot.
Jeremy hid the fawn-coloured telephone under magazines because it complicated his scenario were it to remain visible and its absence would have been remarked upon by Jean Boutell. He told Julie he would call via the blue telephone in the office, which had the last number redial facilty, hence proving that a call had been made to Bourtree Cottage, though by himself, not Nevill. That is why that telephone was not vandalized.
The plain and simple fact which you are trying to obscure is that in the early hours of 7th August 1985 there was no lifeline in the master bedroom for the Bambers.
-
Re: #423
June was known to be a light sleeper. Jeremy had to disable the kitchen telephone before she heard a noise and was anxious enough to call police. He probably didn't know the location of Neville, who could have been dozing on the settee in the lounge following a long day's harvesting and would only need to shout up to June to telephone for help should he hear an intruder.
The significance of Douglas Pike is that he took away the cordless telephone for repair. Nevill therefore has to rely on the landline to summon assistance.
Jeremy knew full well the location of all the telephones at White House Farm. It had been his home for over twenty years and he was a snooper to boot.
Jeremy hid the fawn-coloured telephone under magazines because it complicated his scenario were it to remain visible and its absence would have been remarked upon by Jean Boutell. He told Julie he would call via the blue telephone in the office, which had the last number redial facilty, hence proving that a call had been made to Bourtree Cottage, though by himself, not Nevill. That is why that telephone was not vandalized.
The plain and simple fact which you are trying to obscure is that in the early hours of 7th August 1985 there was no lifeline in the master bedroom for the Bambers.
I don't believe you have understood my post. I don't doubt that there was no phone in the master bedroom. That's not the point. The issue is whether there is any evidence to support the theory that Jeremy Bamber moved a phone from the master bedroom. A close examination of the relevant evidence shows that there isn't and that it is most unlikely Jeremy would do such a thing - assuming he even committed the shootings.
Can I also say that I don't appreciate your insinuation that I am being disingenuous or dishonest. Please refrain from accusing me of obscuring things. I am not obscuring anything. My post emphasises the evidence. You have no right to make such an allegation. It is a libel of me. Others on here may put up with such things, and the moderators may even allow it, but I will not put up with it.
Please in future read through any posts of mine you wish to comment on and ensure you have understood, and please refrain from attacking me personally.
Thank you.
-
Re: #423
June was known to be a light sleeper. Jeremy had to disable the kitchen telephone before she heard a noise and was anxious enough to call police. He probably didn't know the location of Neville, who could have been dozing on the settee in the lounge following a long day's harvesting and would only need to shout up to June to telephone for help should he hear an intruder.
The significance of Douglas Pike is that he took away the cordless telephone for repair. Nevill therefore has to rely on the landline to summon assistance.
Jeremy knew full well the location of all the telephones at White House Farm. It had been his home for over twenty years and he was a snooper to boot.
Jeremy hid the fawn-coloured telephone under magazines because it complicated his scenario were it to remain visible and its absence would have been remarked upon by Jean Boutell. He told Julie he would call via the blue telephone in the office, which had the last number redial facilty, hence proving that a call had been made to Bourtree Cottage, though by himself, not Nevill. That is why that telephone was not vandalized.
The plain and simple fact which you are trying to obscure is that in the early hours of 7th August 1985 there was no lifeline in the master bedroom for the Bambers.
The cordless telephone Steve would still have needed a working line from the house of which there was only one. So an intruder could still stop anyone calling for help by taking the phone downstairs off the hook.
There was no need to hide phones to stop someone calling 999 etc. I am not sure why the fawn coloured telephone complicates JB's scenario?
-
Jean Boutell never knew where phones would end up from one week to the other as they were always being shifted around----which is why she used to call them " musical phones " as in musical chairs, you never knew where they'd land next.
-
I don't believe you have understood my post. I don't doubt that there was no phone in the master bedroom. That's not the point. The issue is whether there is any evidence to support the theory that Jeremy Bamber moved a phone from the master bedroom. A close examination of the relevant evidence shows that there isn't and that it is most unlikely Jeremy would do such a thing - assuming he even committed the shootings.
Can I also say that I don't appreciate your insinuation that I am being disingenuous or dishonest. Please refrain from accusing me of obscuring things. I am not obscuring anything. My post emphasises the evidence. You have no right to make such an allegation. It is a libel of me. Others on here may put up with such things, and the moderators may even allow it, but I will not put up with it.
Please in future read through any posts of mine you wish to comment on and ensure you have understood, and please refrain from attacking me personally.
Thank you.
I understood your post all too well. You create a smokescreen to absolve Jeremy Bamber of blame at every opportunity.
-
The cordless telephone Steve would still have needed a working line from the house of which there was only one. So an intruder could still stop anyone calling for help by taking the phone downstairs off the hook.
There was no need to hide phones to stop someone calling 999 etc. I am not sure why the fawn coloured telephone complicates JB's scenario?
This is true, but Jeremy Bamber had to get to the telephone in the kitchen first without Nevill waking up from his slumber in the lounge or Crispy barking and waking up one of several individuals in the household. Jeremy hid the fawn-coloured telephone because it was anomalous to his plan, which was to deprive the Bambers of a lifeline in the master bedroom. June could easily have taken it had it been in full view and received Pamela's call in bed, which would have been more comfortable than standing over the blue and white chequered worktop at 61 years of age and at such a late hour.
-
This is true, but Jeremy Bamber had to get to the telephone in the kitchen first without Nevill waking up from his slumber in the lounge or Crispy barking and waking up one of several individuals in the household. Jeremy hid the fawn-coloured telephone because it was anomalous to his plan, which was to deprive the Bambers of a lifeline in the master bedroom. June could easily have taken it had it been in full view and received Pamela's call in bed, which would have been more comfortable than standing over the blue and white chequered worktop at 61 years of age and at such a late hour.
Slumber in the lounge?
-
Slumber in the lounge?
Adam we just don't know the location of Nevill on the evening of 6th August 1985 into the early hours of the 7th. His habit was to take his dog for a walk following the day's work, to shower downstairs and take a cigarette and gin and tonic in the lounge. He may well have been in the master bedroom with his wife at the time of the shootings, but given that it was the busiest time of the year workwise he may well have dozed off on the settee downstairs.
-
This is true, but Jeremy Bamber had to get to the telephone in the kitchen first without Nevill waking up from his slumber in the lounge or Crispy barking and waking up one of several individuals in the household. Jeremy hid the fawn-coloured telephone because it was anomalous to his plan, which was to deprive the Bambers of a lifeline in the master bedroom. June could easily have taken it had it been in full view and received Pamela's call in bed, which would have been more comfortable than standing over the blue and white chequered worktop at 61 years of age and at such a late hour.
Good evening Steve.When did JB hide the phone amongst the mags,i am getting baffled.
-
Good evening Steve.When did JB hide the phone amongst the mags,i am getting baffled.
Well he would hide it shortly before the murders, in order to limit access to those within the Farm. Jean Boutell states she discovered the fawn-coloured telephone on 23rd August, but cannot be sure of the exact date.
-
Well he would hide it shortly before the murders, in order to limit access to those within the Farm. Jean Boutell states she discovered the fawn-coloured telephone on 23rd August, but cannot be sure of the exact date.
But when Steve,before he went home to his cottage or when he broke in through the night?
-
Adam we just don't know the location of Nevill on the evening of 6th August 1985 into the early hours of the 7th. His habit was to take his dog for a walk following the day's work, to shower downstairs and take a cigarette and gin and tonic in the lounge. He may well have been in the master bedroom with his wife at the time of the shootings, but given that it was the busiest time of the year workwise he may well have dozed off on the settee downstairs.
The evidence is he was next to June. In bed. It was 2am.
Nevill was shot 4 times in the bedroom. Twice in the face from inches away. Before he fled downstairs & died.
-
Adam we just don't know the location of Nevill on the evening of 6th August 1985 into the early hours of the 7th. His habit was to take his dog for a walk following the day's work, to shower downstairs and take a cigarette and gin and tonic in the lounge. He may well have been in the master bedroom with his wife at the time of the shootings, but given that it was the busiest time of the year workwise he may well have dozed off on the settee downstairs.
How did Nevill end up upstairs with Bamber. If he started off downstairs?
Getting himself shot 4 times. Twice in the face from inches away. Without mounting a counter attack?
You are as bad as QC.
-
Good evening Steve.When did JB hide the phone amongst the mags,i am getting baffled.
You can always make your own mind up.
In my view Bamber brought the bedroom phone downstairs as part of the frame. Then plugged it in. The kitchen phone was put underneath magazines.
All done after the massacre before he cycled home.
-
You can always make your own mind up.
In my view Bamber brought the bedroom phone downstairs as part of the frame. Then plugged it in. The kitchen phone was put underneath magazines.
All done after the massacre before he cycled home.
That does not answer the question Adam.When was the phone hidden among the magazines?
-
That does not answer the question Adam.When was the phone hidden among the magazines?
Were you not able to digest my last post?
The kitchen phone would be put under magazines by Bamber before he cycled home.
-
That does not answer the question Adam.When was the phone hidden among the magazines?
The kitchen phone is not hidden.
Just not left in plain site. Bamber wanted the bedroom phone he left off the hook to be the focal point.
-
Were you not able to digest my last post?
The kitchen phone would be put under magazines by Bamber before he cycled home.
Ok, i will put it another way,when did JB unplug the kitchen phone to disable the bedroom one?
-
Ok, i will put it another way,when did JB unplug the kitchen phone to disable the bedroom one?
If he planned to do that. It would be upon entrance. Prior to going upstairs.
-
Good evening Steve.When did JB hide the phone amongst the mags,i am getting baffled.
I cannot see a phone under the magazines in the crime scene photos. It's another oddity that seems to have shown up after Ann Eaton had access to the house. It wouldn't surprise me if that phone was actually in the upstairs office hence some negatives of the office photos have been destroyed.
-
If he planned to do that. It would be upon entrance. Prior to going upstairs.
Ok,i can understand taking the kitchen phone off thehook to disable the bedroom phone,i can even understand hiding the kitchen phone so that no one can escape down stairs and plug it back in and use it again.But heres the thing,once the massacre has taken place why dosen't JB simply put the kitchen phone back in place,plug it in,and take it off the hook.Job done.So please explain why JB decided that he had to leave the kitchen phone hidden in magazines and take the bedroom pnone down to the kitchen? Am i simply missing something here? I could understand if the kitchen phone wasnt working,then he would have no choice,but what is your logical reason for taking the bedroom phone down to the kitchen Adam?
-
I cannot see a phone under the magazines in the crime scene phones. It's another oddity that seems to have shown up after Ann Eaton had access to the house. It wouldn't surprise me if that phone was actually in the upstairs office hence some negatives of the office photos have been destroyed.
Hi Dave,that is exactly where the campaign team say it was found with its cord wrapped around it.
-
On a shelf
-
Ok,i can understand taking the kitchen phone off thehook to disable the bedroom phone,i can even understand hiding the kitchen phone so that no one can escape down stairs and plug it back in and use it again.But heres the thing,once the massacre has taken place why dosen't JB simply put the kitchen phone back in place,plug it in,and take it off the hook.Job done.So please explain why JB decided that he had to leave the kitchen phone hidden in magazines and take the bedroom pnone down to the kitchen? Am i simply missing something here? I could understand if the kitchen phone wasnt working,then he would have no choice,but what is your logical reason for taking the bedroom phone down to the kitchen Adam?
The "bedroom" phone was already in Kitchen before the shooting. Nevill put it there after the cordless phone in the kitchen was taken away for repairs.
Don't let Adam and Steve lead you on with thier bullshit.
-
Just like the silencer,another piece of evidence found when the police had long left the scene.
-
Just like the silencer,another piece of evidence found when the police had long left the scene.
Exactly.
-
The "bedroom" phone was already in Kitchen before the shooting. Nevill put it there after the cordless phone in the kitchen was taken away for repairs.
Don't let Adam and Steve lead you on with thier bullshit.
I am simply trying to work out their phone scenario Dave,but they simply baffle me with what they are saying.
-
It makes no sense.
-
I am simply trying to work out their phone scenario Dave,but they simply baffle me with what they are saying.
Steve and Adams arguments are so bad, they only further convince people this is a miscarriage of justice. So just leave them to it.
-
I cannot see a phone under the magazines in the crime scene photos. It's another oddity that seems to have shown up after Ann Eaton had access to the house. It wouldn't surprise me if that phone was actually in the upstairs office hence some negatives of the office photos have been destroyed.
67.
The telephone that had been found with the receiver off its cradle in the kitchen was in fact the bedroom telephone, which had been moved downstairs. The kitchen telephone had been hidden amongst a pile of magazines in the kitchen. The office telephone was in its normal place.
------
David telling porkies again. Next he will be saying he cycles to meetings with Jeremy's lawyers.
-
Ok,i can understand taking the kitchen phone off thehook to disable the bedroom phone,i can even understand hiding the kitchen phone so that no one can escape down stairs and plug it back in and use it again.But heres the thing,once the massacre has taken place why dosen't JB simply put the kitchen phone back in place,plug it in,and take it off the hook.Job done.So please explain why JB decided that he had to leave the kitchen phone hidden in magazines and take the bedroom pnone down to the kitchen? Am i simply missing something here? I could understand if the kitchen phone wasnt working,then he would have no choice,but what is your logical reason for taking the bedroom phone down to the kitchen Adam?
You need to ask Bamber or make up your own mind.
Please read my thread created today. It has 17 reasons why it is likely Bamber moved the bedroom phone downstairs.
If the bedroom phone was already downstairs in the kitchen, it just made his job easier.
-
I am simply trying to work out their phone scenario Dave,but they simply baffle me with what they are saying.
The only undisputed evidence is Bamber took the bedroom phone off the hook. To try to support his claim that Nevill called.
The bedroom phone was in the kitchen.
This contradicts his claim that the phone went dead 10 seconds after he answered.
-
The only undisputed evidence is Bamber took the bedroom phone off the hook. To try to support his claim that Nevill called.
The bedroom phone was in the kitchen.
This contradicts his claim that the phone went dead 10 seconds after he answered.
But could you not end the call by pressing down the cradle button Adam?
-
But could you not end the call by pressing down the cradle button Adam?
Yes you can. Even if you didn't it would end automatically after a certain amount of seconds. See the witness statement by the phone engineer.
-
But could you not end the call by pressing down the cradle button Adam?
People end calls by putting the phone down. It stops the wining sound starting after about a minute.
-
You need to ask Bamber or make up your own mind.
Please read my thread created today. It has 17 reasons why it is likely Bamber moved the bedroom phone downstairs.
If the bedroom phone was already downstairs in the kitchen, it just made his job easier.
I have read your 17 reasons Adam.I will answer them all tomorrow if you wish,but none of them convince me the bedroom phone had to be moved down stairs.
-
Yes you can. Even if you didn't it would end automatically after a certain amount of seconds. See the witness statement by the phone engineer.
Thanks Dave.I am not a technical person in any way,so have a bit of trouble understanding about the different phones that were in the White House and how they operated.
-
I have read your 17 reasons Adam.I will answer them all tomorrow if you wish,but none of them convince me the bedroom phone had to be moved down stairs.
It didn't have to be moved. But they are reasons why it is likely.
In my view Bamber didn't even have to disable the phones upon entrance. June & Nevill were not going to hear a thing prior to him entering the bedroom.
-
I have read your 17 reasons Adam.I will answer them all tomorrow if you wish,but none of them convince me the bedroom phone had to be moved down stairs.
Anyway, you believe the bedroom phone was already in the kitchen. Which made Bamber's job easier.
-
It didn't have to be moved. But they are reasons why it is likely.
In my view Bamber didn't even have to disable the phones upon entrance. June & Nevill were not going to hear a thing prior to him entering the bedroom.
Well Steve seems to think different Adam.And didnt David Boutflour say that Crispy usually slept beside the Aga. JB would have known this was a possibility,and that he may start barking ,so i think he would have considered disabling the phone as soon as possible.
-
Well Steve seems to think different Adam.And didnt David Boutflour say that Crispy usually slept beside the Aga. JB would have known this was a possibility,and that he may start barking ,so i think he would have considered disabling the phone as soon as possible.
Did he?
Your scenario has Crispy in the bedroom. Waking Nevill after Sheila screams in the twins room.
-
Anyway, you believe the bedroom phone was already in the kitchen. Which made Bamber's job easier.
Yes,if JB was the killer that would make his job easier Adam.
-
Did he?
Your scenario has Crispy in the bedroom. Waking Nevill after Sheila screams in the twins room.
I am just repeating what David Boutflour said Adam,but dont ask me to remember where i saw this.
-
Yes,if JB was the killer that would make his job easier Adam.
Only a bit easier. Just meant he would not have to disable the kitchen phone upon entrance. If he planned to do that in the first place.
-
I am just repeating what David Boutflour said Adam,but dont ask me to remember where i saw this.
Not sure why DB would say that. How would he know?
-
Only a bit easier. Just meant he would not have to disable the kitchen phone upon entrance. If he planned to do that in the first place.
Quite true,Adam.Goodnight for now.
-
Not sure why DB would say that. How would he know?
Simply by being told Adam,you often talk about your pets preferences and antics to anyone.
-
Simply by being told Adam,you often talk about your pets preferences and antics to anyone.
Do you?
Kindly provide the link. Where Crispy usually slept would be very interesting.
-
Do you?
Kindly provide the link. Where Crispy usually slept would be very interesting.
Hi Adam.Ok,i will try and find it.
-
Just like the silencer,another piece of evidence found when the police had long left the scene.
And why certain crime scene photos are missing.
-
And why certain crime scene photos are missing.
Yes,no doubt showing the phone on the shelf in the office Rob.Wasnt it Ainsley that found it there.I will have to resd up on it again.
-
I cannot see a phone under the magazines in the crime scene photos. It's another oddity that seems to have shown up after Ann Eaton had access to the house. It wouldn't surprise me if that phone was actually in the upstairs office hence some negatives of the office photos have been destroyed.
Well if it was hidden by Bamber you wouldn't, would you?
-
The "bedroom" phone was already in Kitchen before the shooting. Nevill put it there after the cordless phone in the kitchen was taken away for repairs.
Don't let Adam and Steve lead you on with thier bullshit.
Supposition David, and where was the fawn-coloured telephone during this period? Maybe Nevill decided to carry it around with him due to suffering from withdrawal symptoms from losing his pet gadget.
-
Do you?
Kindly provide the link. Where Crispy usually slept would be very interesting.
Good evening Adam.I have found two quotes in CALs book,so i presume this must be where i read about Crispy.The first quote is in the prologue page 6-----Crispy,an irascible shih-tzu known as 'the pest',got under everyone's feet until he was shooed into his basket beside the Aga. Second quote,page 158----David Boutflour described his uncle Nevill as'not a particularly late night person'with a fairly set routine,Each evening he would walk both dogs,Crispy and Bruce,around the front lawn before bed.Afterwards,Bruce would be settled in the barn on the far side of the kitchen yard while Crispy curled up for the night in his basket by the Aga or on a chair next to it.Both dogs were habitually alert to intruders.Crispy was variously described as 'very noisy','lively and always nipping at peoples ankles' with a 'high pitched'yappy bark'that he used to good effect on callers.Bruce would also bark when anyone approached the house.----------So there you have it Adam,it dosen't look as if an intruder could have approached the farm and then the house without alerting at least one of the dogs,or both.Does it?
-
Good evening Adam.I have found two quotes in CALs book,so i presume this must be where i read about Crispy.The first quote is in the prologue page 6-----Crispy,an irascible shih-tzu known as 'the pest',got under everyone's feet until he was shooed into his basket beside the Aga. Second quote,page 158----David Boutflour described his uncle Nevill as'not a particularly late night person'with a fairly set routine,Each evening he would walk both dogs,Crispy and Bruce,around the front lawn before bed.Afterwards,Bruce would be settled in the barn on the far side of the kitchen yard while Crispy curled up for the night in his basket by the Aga or on a chair next to it.Both dogs were habitually alert to intruders.Crispy was variously described as 'very noisy','lively and always nipping at peoples ankles' with a 'high pitched'yappy bark'that he used to good effect on callers.Bruce would also bark when anyone approached the house.----------So there you have it Adam,it dosen't look as if an intruder could have approached the farm and then the house without alerting at least one of the dogs,or both.Does it?
Thanks. That is interesting.
You will have to amend your second Sheila scenario. As you had Crispy barking in the bedroom & waking Nevill after Sheila screams in the twins room.
Crispy perhaps barking downstairs wouldn't wake Nevill & June. They were upstairs in a big house. Asleep behind thick doors & walls.
The evidence shows they were shot in/by the bed.
Not sure Crispy would bark. Not a guard dog & would have recognised Bamber.
-
For supporters it would probably be better if Crispy slept in the main bedroom.
Barking continuously in the main bedroom would at least wake Nevill & June.
Crispy would of course need super dog hearing powers to hear through thick doors & walls.
-
Crispy is a no win situation for supporters.
If in the kitchen, no one upstairs would hear him bark.
If in the bedroom, Crispy would not hear a silent entrance.
Either way, he was not a guard dog so no guarantee he would bark.
-
Looking at the photos there is certainly a basket by the aga.
A small one but Crispy was a small dog.
-
Looking at the photos there is certainly a basket by the aga.
A small one but Crispy was a small dog.
I did not notice that Adam,i will take a look.
-
As far as the other dog goes, thought he was on the other side of WHF from where the bathroom window was.
-
I did not notice that Adam,i will take a look.
On page 1. More than one photo.
-
On page 1. More than one photo.
Ok,seen them Adam,but notice they are only in the photos after the kitchen has been tidied up,and in the same location as Nevill had his head in the scuttle.If that was the usual place for the basket it is a wonder it didnt get any blood on it.It would be interesting to know where the basket was found after the massacre and if it was an item of evidence,would it not?
-
As far as the other dog goes, thought he was on the other side of WHF from where the bathroom window was.
I am not sure about this,someone else will have to answer that.If you look at the farm layout it may be possible to locate the barn.
-
As far as the other dog goes, thought he was on the other side of WHF from where the bathroom window was.
Hi Adam.Yes having studied the farm layout,i would say the down stairs shower window looked out to the garden away from any farm buildings.
-
Can anybody see a phone under this stack of magazines?
-
Can anybody see a phone under this stack of magazines?
67.
The telephone that had been found with the receiver off its cradle in the kitchen was in fact the bedroom telephone, which had been moved downstairs.
The kitchen telephone had been hidden amongst a pile of magazines in the kitchen.
The office telephone was in its normal place.
-
As far as Crispy being a big enough deterrent to Bamber to stop him attempting the massacre, this is very unlikely -
Crispy was not a guard dog.
Crispy may not have woken in the kitchen.
Crispy may have woken but not barked.
Crispy may have barked briefly before recognising Bamber.
It would be unlikely anyone awake upstairs behind closed doors would be able to hear Crispy bark.
There is no guarantee anyone upstairs would bother reacting to hearing a dog bark.
It would be impossible for Crispy's bark to wake people who are upstairs and asleep behind closed doors.
-
The evidence is no one woke prior to receiving their first upstairs shots from Bamber.
So Crispy either did not bark, or barked but did not wake anyone.
-
Can anybody see a phone under this stack of magazines?
Hard to say Dave,nothing obvious.Is that the pile where the phone was allegedly found?
-
For supporters it would probably be better if Crispy slept in the main bedroom.
Barking continuously in the main bedroom would at least wake Nevill & June.
Crispy would of course need super dog hearing powers to hear through thick doors & walls.
Well if Bews and co could hear Crispy whining through thick walls from 30 yards on the outside, Crispy would have no trouble hearing someone approaching the house Adam.
Have you forgotten that dogs have much better hearing the humans?
-
As far as Crispy being a big enough deterrent to Bamber to stop him attempting the massacre, this is very unlikely -
Crispy was not a guard dog.
Crispy may not have woken in the kitchen.
Crispy may have woken but not barked.
Crispy may have barked briefly before recognising Bamber.
It would be unlikely anyone awake upstairs behind closed doors would be able to hear Crispy bark.
There is no guarantee anyone upstairs would bother reacting to hearing a dog bark.
It would be impossible for Crispy's bark to wake people who are upstairs and asleep behind closed doors.
Speak to a burglar Adam, the biggest deterrent is a dog, it does not have to be a guard dog as all dogs can bark ;)
Hint it's the noise they make.
-
Speak to a burglar Adam, the biggest deterrent is a dog, it does not have to be a guard dog as all dogs can bark ;)
Hint it's the noise they make.
You didn't address any of my 7 points.
Crispy was not a guard dog & Bamber was not a burglar to him.
-
As said, Bamber's first shots into each victim was without resistance -
June - 5 times in bed.
Nevill - Twice in the face from inches away.
Daniel - shot in bed.
Nicholas - shot in bed.
Sheila - shot under the chin.
----------
This confirms Crispy did not wake anyone.
-
Dogs do have very good hearing as Rob says.Anyone who has ever owned one will confirm that they start barking and alert you that someone is approaching your property long before they knock on the door.
-
You didn't address any of my 7 points.
Crispy was not a guard dog & Bamber was not a burglar to him.
When I was very young a friend had a tiny dog, when I went round to their house I would go via the back gate and despite knowing me very well the little dog would jump onto the window sill and bark the house down as soon as I went through the gate approx 40 yards away.
As for addressing your 7 points, do they need addressing?
-
As far as Crispy being a big enough deterrent to Bamber to stop him attempting the massacre, this is very unlikely -
Crispy was not a guard dog.
Crispy may not have woken in the kitchen.
Crispy may have woken but not barked.
Crispy may have barked briefly before recognising Bamber.
It would be unlikely anyone awake upstairs behind closed doors would be able to hear Crispy bark.
There is no guarantee anyone upstairs would bother reacting to hearing a dog bark.
It would be impossible for Crispy's bark to wake people who are upstairs and asleep behind closed doors.
Well I will address 1 of your points Adam, Crispy would have detected the fear in JB and his evil intentions, and probably fled upstairs barking.
-
As said, Bamber's first shots into each victim was without resistance -
June - 5 times in bed.
Nevill - Twice in the face from inches away.
Daniel - shot in bed.
Nicholas - shot in bed.
Sheila - shot under the chin.
----------
This confirms Crispy did not wake anyone.
Because nobody clambered in through the window, otherwise Crispy would have done.
-
Dogs do have very good hearing as Rob says.Anyone who has ever owned one will confirm that they start barking and alert you that someone is approaching your property long before they knock on the door.
Well if Crispy did wake from Bamber's bathroom window entrance, the evidence is any long/short term barking did not wake anyone upstairs prior to Bamber opening fire.
-
Well if Crispy did wake from Bamber's bathroom window entrance, the evidence is any long/short term barking did not wake anyone upstairs prior to Bamber opening fire.
Bamber would have had to nullify Crispy somehow before he committed the crime, he could not take the risk.
-
Crispy would be used to people constantly walking around WHF. Including at night.
At the time their were 5 people staying at WHF. Snow66! suggested Nevill had bladder problems & had to keep getting up at night.
Doubt that Crispy would bark whenever he saw someone. Dogs need sleep as well.
-
Bamber would have had to nullify Crispy somehow before he committed the crime, he could not take the risk.
If he did, it would be by letting Crispy know it was someone Crispy knew.
-
As said, Crispy barking downstairs won't wake anyone upstairs. It was a very big house.
-
If he did, it would be by letting Crispy know it was someone Crispy knew.
That would make no difference, most dog fights in the park are caused by the owners.
-
That would make no difference, most dog fights in the park are caused by the owners.
Have to disagree with that.
Anyway, the evidence is no one reacted prior to receiving their first shots from Bamber.
So Crispy either -
Didn't wake.
Woke but didn't bark.
Barked long/short term but did not wake anyone.
-
Dogs do have very good hearing as Rob says.Anyone who has ever owned one will confirm that they start barking and alert you that someone is approaching your property long before they knock on the door.
They do, indeed, Snow. Their hearing outstrips that of humans. However, their reading doesn't, so they'd be unlikely to read any signs which may have said "Private Property". Wild animals of all types, local to the area, would probably have taken advantage of a farm-yard devoid of humans. My point is this; has Crispy barked, as has been frequently suggested, at fresh air, the chances are high that he'd have barked, on and off, all night.
-
They do, indeed, Snow. Their hearing outstrips that of humans. However, their reading doesn't, so they'd be unlikely to read any signs which may have said "Private Property". Wild animals of all types, local to the area, would probably have taken advantage of a farm-yard devoid of humans. My point is this; has Crispy barked, as has been frequently suggested, at fresh air, the chances are high that he'd have barked, on and off, all night.
I think most dogs would bark at someone clambering through a window in the middle of the night Jane, plus their body scent would tell the dog it was not a social visit in this case.
Dogs are amazing, they pick up the tiniest body language signals, one story that interested me was a lady had decided to go to the kitchen and kill herself with a overdose of tablets. Her dog stood in the doorway and refused to let her through.
-
The Crispy scenario is a bit complicated.Let us look at his normal night time routine.Apparently he slept in the kitchen either in his basket or on a chair.After the massacre he was understandably distressed and ended up in the master bedroom under the bed.There dosen't seem to be any photos of Crispies basket in the crime scene photos until some days later when it appears beside the Aga.It may have been obscured by Nevills body in the kitchen,after the massacre,but if this was the case it must surely have been heavily bloodied and taken as an item of evidence.Was it? I have no idea,maybe some of the Hero members may know.If the basket was not in its usual place beside the Aga that night,where was it? Has anyone spotted it in the master bedroom? It had to be somewhere that night,but as always with this case ,the withholding of the crime scene photos means we cant simply look at pictures of each room and pin point it.However,as i have said,the basket does re-appear once the crime scene has been tidied up,so who put it back beside the Aga and why? By this time Crispy had been moved to Jeremys cottage.Why wasnt the basket moved with him ,especially if it was of no evidential value.Only the relatives and JB knew where the basket should be,or possibly the police if it was found beside the Aga that morning.But again ,if it was found in the kitchen surely it must have been bloodied and an item of evidence.It does not look bloodied in the photos,and seems to be undamaged,so is it reasonable to assume that for some reason Crispy slept somewhere else that night? So as far as i can see,we have no way of knowing where Crispy was sleeping that night unless the withheld photos are released to show the location of the basket.End of ramble for now.
-
Thanks Snow that was interesting not a ramble, I am sure Adam can help here as he is often saying nothing is withheld ::)
-
The Crispy scenario is a bit complicated.Let us look at his normal night time routine.Apparently he slept in the kitchen either in his basket or on a chair.After the massacre he was understandably distressed and ended up in the master bedroom under the bed.There dosen't seem to be any photos of Crispies basket in the crime scene photos until some days later when it appears beside the Aga.It may have been obscured by Nevills body in the kitchen,after the massacre,but if this was the case it must surely have been heavily bloodied and taken as an item of evidence.Was it? I have no idea,maybe some of the Hero members may know.If the basket was not in its usual place beside the Aga that night,where was it? Has anyone spotted it in the master bedroom? It had to be somewhere that night,but as always with this case ,the withholding of the crime scene photos means we cant simply look at pictures of each room and pin point it.However,as i have said,the basket does re-appear once the crime scene has been tidied up,so who put it back beside the Aga and why? By this time Crispy had been moved to Jeremys cottage.Why wasnt the basket moved with him ,especially if it was of no evidential value.Only the relatives and JB knew where the basket should be,or possibly the police if it was found beside the Aga that morning.But again ,if it was found in the kitchen surely it must have been bloodied and an item of evidence.It does not look bloodied in the photos,and seems to be undamaged,so is it reasonable to assume that for some reason Crispy slept somewhere else that night? So as far as i can see,we have no way of knowing where Crispy was sleeping that night unless the withheld photos are released to show the location of the basket.End of ramble for now.
You were the one yesterday quoting extracts saying Crispy slept in a basket by the aga.
I backed you up with photo evidence.
Make up your mind.
-
If Crispy slept in a basket in the main bedroom. There would be no barking prior to Bamber opening fire on a sleeping June.
-
They do, indeed, Snow. Their hearing outstrips that of humans. However, their reading doesn't, so they'd be unlikely to read any signs which may have said "Private Property". Wild animals of all types, local to the area, would probably have taken advantage of a farm-yard devoid of humans. My point is this; has Crispy barked, as has been frequently suggested, at fresh air, the chances are high that he'd have barked, on and off, all night.
Hiya Jane,how are you,so good to hear from you.Yes all that you say makes sense,as does what Rob says in reply.No one knows how much Crispy barked through the night normally or if anyone in the house took any notice.Crispy would have to do something out of the ordinary to get anyones attention.So whether Crispy alerted anyone that night is very hard to say.I am more interested in his basket at the moment.
-
If Crispy slept in a basket in the main bedroom. There would be no barking prior to Bamber opening fire on a sleeping June.
I do not agree with that Adam,as soon as the killer opened fire on the twins Crispy would go mad.Have you not been listening to Rob about how sensitive a dogs ears are.And as for Crispy sleeping in the kitchen,if you read what i have said about the basket and lack of crime scene photos of it,it is hard to be sure where he slept that night.
-
I don't know why Crispy would sleep in the bedroom.
A single person may want their cat or dog sleeping on their bed with them. But can't see two people wanting that.
Giving Crispy a basket in the kitchen means he can wander around during the night if he wants to.
-
I do not agree with that Adam,as soon as the killer opened fire on the twins Crispy would go mad.Have you not been listening to Rob about how sensitive a dogs ears are.And as for Crispy sleeping in the kitchen,if you read what i have said about the basket and lack of crime scene photos of it,it is hard to be sure where he slept that night.
How would Crispy hear Bamber shooting the twins. The rifle was silent with a silencer attached?
That is if Bamber shot the twins first.
-
I don't know why Crispy would sleep in the bedroom.
A single person may want their cat or dog sleeping on their bed with them. But can't see two people wanting that.
Giving Crispy a basket in the kitchen means he can wander around during the night if he wants to.
Yes,it is more than likely Crispy slept in his usual place beside the aga that night,but no conclusive evidence till the police hand over the remaining crime scene photos.
-
How would Crispy hear Bamber shooting the twins. The rifle was silent with a silencer attached?
That is if Bamber shot the twins first.
That is,if a silencer was attached Adam and if JB was the killer.
-
That is,if a silencer was attached Adam and if JB was the killer.
The evidence is a silencer was used and Bamber was the killer.
The rifle without silencer was also virtually silent.
-
https://youtu.be/SNrlfDPC_xs
-
The evidence is a silencer was used and Bamber was the killer.
The rifle without silencer was also virtually silent.
If everyone was happy that the evidence showed that Bamber was the killer,this forum would not exist Adam.
-
https://youtu.be/SNrlfDPC_xs
No matter how silent the rifle was,this in no way tells us who the killer was Adam.
-
Hiya Jane,how are you,so good to hear from you.Yes all that you say makes sense,as does what Rob says in reply.No one knows how much Crispy barked through the night normally or if anyone in the house took any notice.Crispy would have to do something out of the ordinary to get anyones attention.So whether Crispy alerted anyone that night is very hard to say.I am more interested in his basket at the moment.
For the record I believe Crispy was found under the bed in the main bedroom by RWC who placed him a cupboard to prevent (so he says) further destruction of evidence in the crime scene.
-
Bamber would have had to nullify Crispy somehow before he committed the crime, he could not take the risk.
That is a very good point Rob,JB would have needed to at least shut Crispy in the kitchen.He couldnt creep through the house with a dog at his feet,probably in the dark.Crispy could have tripped JB up on the stairs,causing him to tumble down stairs.That would have woken the whole household.And if JB did shut him in the kitchen,Crispy would probably get upset and bark non stop.No i think you are right Rob,Crispy would have been more of a problem than Adam would like to admit.
-
For the record I believe Crispy was found under the bed in the main bedroom by RWC who placed him a cupboard to prevent (so he says) further destruction of evidence in the crime scene.
Hi Bubo.Who is RWC?
-
That is a very good point Rob,JB would have needed to at least shut Crispy in the kitchen.He couldnt creep through the house with a dog at his feet,probably in the dark.Crispy could have tripped JB up on the stairs,causing him to tumble down stairs.That would have woken the whole household.And if JB did shut him in the kitchen,Crispy would probably get upset and bark non stop.No i think you are right Rob,Crispy would have been more of a problem than Adam would like to admit.
How could anyone upstairs hear Crispy if the kitchen door was shut?
His bark would have to travel through 2 doors, around corners & up a flight of stairs.
-
That is a very good point Rob,JB would have needed to at least shut Crispy in the kitchen.He couldnt creep through the house with a dog at his feet,probably in the dark.Crispy could have tripped JB up on the stairs,causing him to tumble down stairs.That would have woken the whole household.And if JB did shut him in the kitchen,Crispy would probably get upset and bark non stop.No i think you are right Rob,Crispy would have been more of a problem than Adam would like to admit.
'Dog at his feet'?
No one knows if Crispy even woke.
The evidence is nothing woke the deceased prior to receiving their shots.
-
'Dog at his feet'?
No one knows if Crispy even woke.
The evidence is nothing woke the deceased prior to receiving their shots.
JB couldn't get hold of the rifle from the kitchen without wakening Crispy Adam,unless he was a Shaolin priest or a Ninja warrior.
-
No,i dont like to say something like this,but if Crispy was in the kitchen and JB was the killer,it is more than likely hr would have been the first victim.JB could not risk leaving the dog alive to make the task ahead any harder to carry out.I think Lookout has poined this out many times.
-
Hi Bubo.Who is RWC?
Ronald Walter Cook head of crime Scene
-
JB couldn't get hold of the rifle from the kitchen without wakening Crispy Adam,unless he was a Shaolin priest or a Ninja warrior.
We don't know where Bamber left the rifle during his reconnaisance a few hours earlier.
He would have left it in place that benefits him.
-
Bit of a 'no win' for supporters with Crispy.
Either he was sleeping in his basket by the aga. Meaning no one upstairs would hear him. If he woke/barked.
Or he was in the bedroom sleeping. So would not be awoken.
-
The best case scenario with Crispy is he barked continuously downstairs.
However that would only be for a few seconds while Bamber walked up the stairs.
No one upstairs would hear or wake.
-
Wouldn't you be driven to distraction with a dog yapping at your feet while killing everyone ? So why wasn't Crispy put out of his misery first ? I understand that JB was more than capable---being a " psychopath " ?
-
Wouldn't you be driven to distraction with a dog yapping at your feet while killing everyone ? So why wasn't Crispy put out of his misery first ? I understand that JB was more than capable---being a " psychopath " ?
Nothing to do with being a psychopath. Most farmers I know don't have finer feelings for dogs, unless they happen to be gun dogs, and would have no qualms about dispatching them. JB didn't want it to look as if it was he who was responsible so he did what he thought Sheila would have done -or rather, not done- in order to make it appear to have been her work. Under other circumstances, I doubt he'd have turned a hair. As with Bruce.
-
The other guard dog outside, Bamber arranged for it to be re homed.
It was Crispy who Bamber didn't like.
-
Nothing to do with being a psychopath. Most farmers I know don't have finer feelings for dogs, unless they happen to be gun dogs, and would have no qualms about dispatching them. JB didn't want it to look as if it was he who was responsible so he did what he thought Sheila would have done -or rather, not done- in order to make it appear to have been her work. Under other circumstances, I doubt he'd have turned a hair. As with Bruce.
Psychopath is what the general public would describe JB as being, plus a few from the red forum in the past. ?
Looking at Sheila's overall illness, the dog/s hadn't appeared to have been any threat such as the humans around her had been.
-
CAL says Bamber ordered Crispy to be put down.
She says the CT claimed the vet recommended it. She then asked them to put the vets written report online (which she has seen). The CT refused.
Why would a vet recommend a healthy dog is put down?
-
Obviously the big news of the day is the picture of Sheila online was doctored by the CT. To try to entice potential gullible supporters.
The real picture shows dry, cracked blood on her neck.
There have always been suggestions the picture was doctored. Now it is official.
Guess Sheila didn't dial 999 at 6.10am after all.
-
CAL says Bamber ordered Crispy to be put down.
She says the CT claimed the vet recommended it. She then asked them to put the vets written report online (which she has seen). The CT refused.
Why would a vet recommend a healthy dog is put down?
But it wasn't a healthy dog---and you know it !!
-
We don't know where Bamber left the rifle during his reconnaisance a few hours earlier.
He would have left it in place that benefits him.
Hi Adam.The only place that would have benefited him would be in the shower room,ready to be retrieved ad soon as he entered.But he would have needed to sneak it through unseen and hide it well,else Nevill would notice it when he went for his shower.Even then he would still encounter Crispy when he came out of the shower room.So no matter where he left the rifle,it would not be a big advantage.
-
But it wasn't a healthy dog---and you know it !!
Source please.
Your last post on Crispy says -
'Wouldn't you be driven to distraction with a dog yapping at your feet while killing everyone'.
----------
Seems a pretty healthy dog to me. Thought vets were supposed to try to cure sick pets.
-
Hi Adam.The only place that would have benefited him would be in the shower room,ready to be retrieved ad soon as he entered.But he would have needed to sneak it through unseen and hide it well,else Nevill would notice it when he went for his shower.Even then he would still encounter Crispy when he came out of the shower room.So no matter where he left the rifle,it would not be a big advantage.
Bamber could put the rifle wherever he wanted. Out of sight. He was collecting it only a few hours later.
Encounter Crispy? I am sure Bamber was worried about that!
-
A policeman who had never seen Crispy before, picked him up & put him in a bedroom cupboard.
Bamber had the option of putting Crispy somewhere quiet upon arrival. If he woke & barked.
To bother doing this, Bamber would need to believe Crispy's kitchen bark would travel upstairs & through thick walls. Waking people within a few seconds before he entered the bedroom. All impossible.
-
Source please.
Your last post on Crispy says -
'Wouldn't you be driven to distraction with a dog yapping at your feet while killing everyone'.
----------
Seems a pretty healthy dog to me. Thought vets were supposed to try to cure sick pets.
From past reports the dog was old anyway and the trauma of the night would have taken its toll.
-
Because Bills an idiot? :-\
More from the idiot
https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/the-ccrc-jeremy-bamber-and-the-flawed-pathology-evidence-of-dr-peter-vanezis
-
Many thanks for that Bill. Not the first time that a pathologist had been "working" with the police-----Ian Tomlinson's death for instance , which I thought was horrendous enough ?
The dismissal of acknowledging that these injuries on all 3 adults existed should have been enough to question and determine how such injuries would come about and with what sort of a weapon/implement.
Bill, I've been called all sorts of things over the years and withstood insults galore----but I'm still here and as determined as ever to see this MOJ through. I'm sure that you're the same as many people don't matter to me. I just sit back and know that one day I'll have the last laugh, as will yourself.
-
More from the idiot
https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/the-ccrc-jeremy-bamber-and-the-flawed-pathology-evidence-of-dr-peter-vanezis
Thanks there is no doubt to me anyway.
-
Thanks there is no doubt to me anyway.
Vanezis seems to have a knack of getting mixed up in controversial cases. Four or five come to mind.
-
More from the idiot
https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/the-ccrc-jeremy-bamber-and-the-flawed-pathology-evidence-of-dr-peter-vanezis
Indeed. :-\
-
Indeed. :-\
If they were runs that ended in congealed spots, then any proposed transfer theory has to be linked to the non-fatal shot. You believe she self administered two shots. So when she was repositioning her self for the second shot, why did the blood runs not change direction in accordance with her body positioning? Why did they just stop dead in their tracks?
-
If they were runs that ended in congealed spots, then any proposed transfer theory has to be linked to the non-fatal shot. You believe she self administered two shots. So when she was repositioning her self for the second shot, why did the blood runs not change direction in accordance with her body positioning? Why did they just stop dead in their tracks?
We have gone over this enough times already. Going over it yet again is not going to bring you out of fantasy world.
-
We have gone over this enough times already. Going over it yet again is not going to bring you out of fantasy world.
You're all over the place on this, and from where I'm looking, you have nowhere else to go. It's over. You're cornered and none of your answers have any substance to them. Your last suggestion was that Sheila grabbed a deceased June's throat, which is actually in contradiction to what Vanezis claims. You're so desperate to shore up Vanezis against counter claims, that you your self have now chosen a counter claim in order to do so. Yet you can't seem to see the irony in this. Also, you were forced to include that June was deceased when Sheila grabbed her throat, in order to steer clear of a fight scenario.
-
More from the idiot
https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/the-ccrc-jeremy-bamber-and-the-flawed-pathology-evidence-of-dr-peter-vanezis
I have e-mailed this article to Dr Vanezis. I would be surprised if he gets back to me. But its worth a try. :))
-
Vanezis seems to have a knack of getting mixed up in controversial cases. Four or five come to mind.
PV does not come out of this looking to well, I know David disagrees but to my eyes the high res pictures of Sheila are damming to the Crown's case.
-
PV does not come out of this looking to well, I know David disagrees but to my eyes the high res pictures of Sheila are damming to the Crown's case.
Yet these pictures were used at trial. The only damning thing about them is the blood flowing down her dress and her face looking calm (like a suicide). And the indicators she died some time later than the others in the house.
-
Yet these pictures were used at trial. The only damning thing about them is the blood flowing down her dress and her face looking calm (like a suicide). And the indicators she died some time later than the others in the house.
I don't think we can know what was used at trial. We do not know the exact format or size or colour of what was used at trial.
Other than a select bunch of individuals, I very much doubt anyone at trial, including those acting for (or on behalf of) the defence; and including jury members, would countenance for one minute the possibility that a pathologist would conceal wounds indicative of a fight. The likes of Knight would more likely be concerned with causes of death and trajectories of bullets through organs and bone etc.
The image in the article with numbered wounds doesn't do some of the wounds justice. I think there are clearer images. I think Bill has been conservative in his article, to some extent.
Although I am a fan of some of David's work and posts on the case, he is completely adrift on this particular issue.
-
Will any of them ever admit that Sheila was let down very badly by those who were deemed professionals.?
A medical negligence case should have been set-up, because it was gross negligence that Sheila had been in the state that she was, starting with Ferguson.
-
I don't think we can know what was used at trial. We do not know the exact format or size or colour of what was used at trial.
Other than a select bunch of individuals, I very much doubt anyone at trial, including those acting for (or on behalf of) the defence; and including jury members, would countenance for one minute the possibility that a pathologist would conceal wounds indicative of a fight. The likes of Knight would more likely be concerned with causes of death and trajectories of bullets through organs and bone etc.
The image in the article with numbered wounds doesn't do some of the wounds justice. I think there are clearer images. I think Bill has been conservative in his article, to some extent.
Although I am a fan of some of David's work and posts on the case, he is completely adrift on this particular issue.
June and Sheila got into a massive brawl and inflicted 70 cuts on their arms and legs. Lets ignore the fact that all the bloodstains are actually bloodstains and thus appear as such. Lets ignore the fact DS Woodcock noted the bloodstains on Junes legs and never mentioned cuts. Lets ignore the fact the autopsy notes written on the very same day (prior to JB being a suspect) never mention cuts. Lets ignore the fact the deputy Coroner Mr Thompkin along with DI Cook and DS Miller never mentioned or noticed the 70 cuts despite being present at the autopsy. Lets ignore the fact Bernard Knight and Prof Leon Mcdonell realised they were bloodstains. Lets ignore the fact June was shot in bed half a dozen times while asleep thus contradicting the entire scenario. Lets ignore the fact Taff Jones and ACC Simpson never mentioned anything of this nature while trying to get the relatives off their back. Lets ignore the fact Vanezis stated in his autopsy notes that Sheila killed the other four victims and then herself. Then we must ignore the blood trials going down Sheila's nightdress that coincide with the runs on her arm. Lets ignore the fact Vanezis thought the murder suicide theory was "prevailing".
Lets claim the bloodstains are cuts and conjure up a huge conspiracy theory out of thin air to explain all the problems with this idea.
This is the key to JBs freedom! JB will be out by Christmas. Put money on it 👍
-
Yet these pictures were used at trial. The only damning thing about them is the blood flowing down her dress and her face looking calm (like a suicide). And the indicators she died some time later than the others in the house.
David these pictures we are seeing now I assume are high res scans? do we know what size images were used at trial and more important is there a list of which images were used?
Sorry I missed Roch's post he answered my question.
-
David these pictures we are seeing now I assume are high res scans? do we know what size images were used at trial and more important is there a list of which images were used?
Sorry I missed Roch's post he answered my question.
The blue folder (defence bundle) that contained the crime scene photos used at JBs 1986 trial appears in a 2005 documentary. Being held by his then defence advocate Giovanni Di-Stefano. That should give you an idea.
-
Thanks David, in the full version of the photograph I notice there in no blood on the rug Sheila is lying on, yet quite a lot around it? Could the rug have been placed after?
-
OK, let's break this down...
June and Sheila got into a massive brawl and inflicted 70 cuts on their arms and legs. Lets ignore the fact that all the bloodstains are actually bloodstains and thus appear as such.
Why would it be a mass brawl? Why not a life or death struggle? If Sheila was the perpetrator as you believe... and the twins were at risk... and Sheila was at risk of suicide... and Nevill and June were at risk of receiving violence at Sheila's hands.. (basically any combination of the afore mentioned) then that is a fight or flight situation for June. As for any shots received on the bed by June.. such shots could have been received because she was cowering there exhausted after losing such a fight. We don't even know if any wounds were from an earlier incident that was somehow diffused.
As for your second sentence - Bloodstains do not mimic cuts, gouges, grazes and nicks. Nor does flowing blood cause indentations on the skin. Nor does flowing blood cause scrape marks on the skin.
Lets ignore the fact DS Woodcock noted the bloodstains on Junes legs and never mentioned cuts.
I find it hard to understand how there are cuts on June's legs without bruising. However, I also find it hard to understand how the marks were formed, if all they are is bloodstains. We are referring to the horizontal marks on her shins here - not the self evident bloodstaining also present. A statement by Woodcock that includes mention of bloodstains is not problematic for the prosecution. If he ever did mention cuts, in theory it could have been removed from the final version.
Lets ignore the fact the autopsy notes written on the very same day (prior to JB being a suspect) never mention cuts.
Knight criticises Vanezis for not going in to enough detail regarding the gunshot wounds, adding the caveat that Vanezis would have been under pressure due to the multiple victims. Perhaps Vanezis' views regarding who was culpable for the killings was coloured by the minor wounds, which tell their own story. However, since his main focus was the gunshot wounds, it's possible he omitted to mention the minor wounds. Such an omission could have later been very helpful to the second investigation (the narrative of which, Vanezis was to some extent co-opted in to, by time of trial).
Lets ignore the fact the deputy Coroner Mr Thompkin along with DI Cook and DS Miller never mentioned or noticed the 70 cuts despite being present at the autopsy.
I expect Miller was thick as thieves with Ainsley and Cook, the actions of latter two having eventually led to complaints being submitted to the CCRC. As for Tompkin - is it your suggestion that he closely monitored events? In any event, Tomkins did go along with the 4&1 theory, releasing bodies for cremation etc. So I'm not sure what point you are making by including him here.
Lets ignore the fact Bernard Knight and Prof Leon Mcdonell realised they were bloodstains.
I think Knight would have been focussed on the gunshot wounds. We do not know the brief he was given by Rivlin. As for Macdonnell, whatever images he viewed, they were not sufficient for anyone to cotton on to the presence of wounds. This only came much later, after the release of negatives from EP photography dept, to CCRC, to defence.
Lets ignore the fact June was shot in bed half a dozen times while asleep thus contradicting the entire scenario.
See above. You do not know the circumstances of how / when June received the shots that she did. Claiming she was asleep sounds like an Adamisation.
Lets ignore the fact Taff Jones and ACC Simpson never mentioned anything of this nature while trying to get the relatives off their back.
You do not know what either of these men said, when trying to get the relatives off their back. Unfortunately, neither Ann nor Robert went in to any detail about such conversations.
Lets ignore the fact Vanezis stated in his autopsy notes that Sheila killed the other four victims and then herself.
Probably because he saw all the wounds we are arguing about today. It's not brain surgery.
Then we must ignore the blood trials going down Sheila's nightdress that coincide with the runs on her arm.
You will have to demonstrate this to help me and others understand what you're arguing.
Lets ignore the fact Vanezis thought the murder suicide theory was "prevailing".
In what context did he say this... and when did he say it? Also see above.
Lets claim the bloodstains are cuts and conjure up a huge conspiracy theory out of thin air to explain all the problems with this idea.
No, let's just use our eyes and common sense.
This is the key to JBs freedom! JB will be out by Christmas. Put money on it 👍
Not really.. the article probably mocks the deferential attitude that the CCRC display towards original experts. i have repeatedly said I think JB will die in prison.
-
The blue folder (defence bundle) that contained the crime scene photos used at JBs 1985 trial appears in a 2005 documentary. Being held by his then defence advocate Giovanni Di-Stefano. That should give you an idea.
This looks like a relatively lo-def image. after a considerable tussle, the CCRC released some negatives to the defence, that were owned by Essex Police photography Dept. This event occurred long after 2005.
-
I have e-mailed this article to Dr Vanezis. I would be surprised if he gets back to me. But its worth a try. :))
Any word from Pete yet?
He has not contacted CCRC Watch to dispute anything in the article - seems like he accepts that it is correct.
-
Any word from Pete yet?
He has not contacted CCRC Watch to dispute anything in the article - seems like he accepts that it is correct.
What a ridiculous far reaching assumption. How do you know he has even bothered to read it?
-
What a ridiculous far reaching assumption. How do you know he has even bothered to read it?
He's probably used to complaints...
https://sunaina2009.tripod.com/id10.html
-
He's probably used to complaints...
https://sunaina2009.tripod.com/id10.html
...or treats it with the contempt he feels it deserves.
-
...or treats it with the contempt he feels it deserves.
Why, because he's a pathologist and on that reason alone, he can do no wrong? He also waded in to undermine the clamour from approximately 13 doctors, for further investigations in the post mortem for David Kelly.
He also helped wrongfully imprison a man for 7 years.
He also produced findings in favour of the authorities in a controversial case in Malaysia (or similar country). Findings which were later contested by another pathologist, not acting on behalf of the authorities.
I have no doubt there are probably other Vanezis controversies, lurking, waiting to come to light.
-
Why, because he's a pathologist and on that reason alone, he can do no wrong? He also waded in to undermine the clamour from approximately 13 doctors, for further investigations in the post mortem for David Kelly.
He also helped wrongfully imprison a man for 7 years.
He also produced findings in favour of the authorities in a controversial case in Malaysia (or similar country). Findings which were later contested by another pathologist, not acting on behalf of the authorities.
I have no doubt there are probably other Vanezis controversies, lurking, waiting to come to light.
I'm guessing you can't wait for that to happen, Roch? Name me one other person -and I'm including you and me in that- who hasn't made errors of judgement.
Incidentally, whilst he may have contributed to wrongful imprisonment, I doubt that he was solely responsible for it.
-
I'm guessing you can't wait for that to happen, Roch? Name me one other person -and I'm including you and me in that- who hasn't made errors of judgement.
Incidentally, whilst he may have contributed to wrongful imprisonment, I doubt that he was solely responsible for it.
Jane, no disrespect but I don't think the penny has dropped for many of the members on here regarding the marks on Sheila's wrist. The penny has dropped for David - and he is stumped. But he can't bring himself to admit this. So he is thrown back upon contriving whimsical explanations as to how the blood got there in the form that it did. Even to the point where he undermines Vanezis' own claims. Can you and others not see the irony in that? In order to shore up Vanezis, a supporter has had to theorise an explanation that is contrary to Vanezis' own explanation?
-
He's probably used to complaints...
https://sunaina2009.tripod.com/id10.html
I think It comes with the territory of being a prominent pathologist.
You will always now and then have friends, loved ones and relatives of the deceased you examined, not agreeing with your conclusions or believing you are no good because they have a hard time accepting whatever happened. On top of that, any well know case you get involved in is going to attract conspiracy theorists who will also not say good things about you.
-
Jane, no disrespect but I don't think the penny has dropped for many of the members on here regarding the marks on Sheila's wrist. The penny has dropped for David - and he is stumped. But he can't bring himself to admit this. So he is thrown back upon contriving whimsical explanations as to how the blood got there in the form that it did. Even to the point where he undermines Vanezis' own claims. Can you and others not see the irony in that? In order to shore up Vanezis, a supporter has had to theorise an explanation that is contrary to Vanezis' own explanation?
In your fantasy world I may be "stumped". The reality is Bill has been peddling this idea for years now, and has only convinced one person who is a conspiratard. All while being refuted and dismissed by everyone else.
-
Jane, no disrespect but I don't think the penny has dropped for many of the members on here regarding the marks on Sheila's wrist. The penny has dropped for David - and he is stumped. But he can't bring himself to admit this. So he is thrown back upon contriving whimsical explanations as to how the blood got there in the form that it did. Even to the point where he undermines Vanezis' own claims. Can you and others not see the irony in that? In order to shore up Vanezis, a supporter has had to theorise an explanation that is contrary to Vanezis' own explanation?
Hi Roch,what view does Bill and yourself take about Sheila washing and changing clothes after the shooting?
-
I'm almost certain that Sheila left heavily bloodied day clothes soaking. First there were 3 buckets of soaking clothes which turned into two. For 1 pair of drawers and the twins trousers/jeans ? Who are they kidding ?
-
In your fantasy world I may be "stumped". The reality is Bill has been peddling this idea for years now, and has only convinced one person who is a conspiratard. All while being refuted and dismissed by everyone else.
This is nothing more than bluster David. You literally have no feasible explanation, as to how blood could transfer to her wrist and then, as if by magic, freeze in one place, without running in any other direction.
Remember, in order to understand what happened, you have to work out the following:
Where the source of the transfer originated.
When the transfer occurred.
When it froze in its tracks.
Why it froze in its tracks.
You're beat David. You can't provide adequate explanations. Regardless of what happens re the CCRC, it's over for you on this issue. You are soundly beaten.
-
I'm almost certain that Sheila left heavily bloodied day clothes soaking. First there were 3 buckets of soaking clothes which turned into two. For 1 pair of drawers and the twins trousers/jeans ? Who are they kidding ?
I can only see two buckets in the crime scene photos Lookout.
-
Hi Roch,what view does Bill and yourself take about Sheila washing and changing clothes after the shooting?
Hi Snow, I don't have an opinion on it. I'm not saying that she never washed or changed anything whatsoever at any point. However, I think substantial washing is unlikely. It would have washed away the marks on her arms, wrist, hand etc.
-
Hi Snow, I don't have an opinion on it. I'm not saying that she never washed or changed anything whatsoever at any point. However, I think substantial washing is unlikely. It would have washed away the marks on her arms, wrist, hand etc.
Exactly Roch,of course she could have changed her clothes without washing.Lookout thinks there was a third bucket.Did you ever read my post about the lack of blood found on Sheila?Maybe there simply didn't need to be much blood on her night dress.June would have been badly wounded before any scuffle with Sheila,and probably just made a grab at her once the rifle was empty,she would not have been fit to struggle with Sheila and get her blood all over her.
-
This is nothing more than bluster David. You literally have no feasible explanation, as to how blood could transfer to her wrist and then, as if by magic, freeze in one place, without running in any other direction.
Remember, in order to understand what happened, you have to work out the following:
Where the source of the transfer originated.
When the transfer occurred.
When it froze in its tracks.
Why it froze in its tracks.
You're beat David. You can't provide adequate explanations. Regardless of what happens re the CCRC, it's over for you on this issue. You are soundly beaten.
Living in a fantasy world.
-
Not really.. the article probably mocks the deferential attitude that the CCRC display towards original experts. i have repeatedly said I think JB will die in prison.
If this case is anything to go by Roch you could be right?
Tony Stock died in 2012 still fighting to clear his name: spending from his meagre savings to hire private investigators and hoping beyond hope to see justice. Jon Robins takes up where Stock left off undertaking new research with the support of Glyn Maddocks, Stock's lawyer, and Ralph Barrington, formerly the CCRC's investigations adviser. Previously head of Essex CID, Barrington was so shocked at how the Court of Appeal treated Stock that he pursued it after he retired. 'If anyone seriously believes the Court of Appeal has reformed itself since the dark days of the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four, they should study the unreported and amazing case of Tony Stock': Private Eye. 'One of the most outrageous miscarriages of justice of modern times': Barry Sheerman, Labour MP for Huddersfield. 'I would have thought that the injustice done to Tony [Stock] was fairly self-evident and yet his conviction still stands. I find this very difficult to accept'
-
Because of that evil old Mason, who was RWB, JB will probably die in prison Roch. It makes no difference how many times they swear on oath, what they say goes, whether it be right or wrong. Bad ones have no conscience whatsoever ! He was behind JB's conviction all the way through. Back me up and I'll make it worth your while----is their motto. Sworn to secrecy !
It'll now depend on whether there are any Mason's in the CCRC and not if JB's innocent.
-
I can only see two buckets in the crime scene photos Lookout.
Only two buckets were spoken of and pictured. It's purely speculative to claim there had been three. On the other hand, who's to say that there hadn't been another one............other than that it seems unusual for there to have been three buckets...........then there's the point that in one bucket there were only two pairs of knickers, so plenty of room for other light garments.
-
Only two buckets were spoken of and pictured. It's purely speculative to claim there had been three. On the other hand, who's to say that there hadn't been another one............other than that it seems unusual for there to have been three buckets...........then there's the point that in one bucket there were only two pairs of knickers, so plenty of room for other light garments.
Hi Jane,were the contents of both buckets listed by the police?
-
Jane, no disrespect but I don't think the penny has dropped for many of the members on here regarding the marks on Sheila's wrist. The penny has dropped for David - and he is stumped. But he can't bring himself to admit this. So he is thrown back upon contriving whimsical explanations as to how the blood got there in the form that it did. Even to the point where he undermines Vanezis' own claims. Can you and others not see the irony in that? In order to shore up Vanezis, a supporter has had to theorise an explanation that is contrary to Vanezis' own explanation?
Sorry Roch, but the only irony I'm aware of is the lengths you go to putting forward another pathologist as being correct in order to discredit Vanezis. At least Vanezis saw the bodies, even if he didn't see them in situ. I can only say I believe any whimsy to be your own.
-
Hi Jane,were the contents of both buckets listed by the police?
I imagine they were as we know that there were two pairs of boy's trousers in one bucket, and two pairs of knickers in the other.............although for the life of me, I can't think why they'd have thought it necessary. After all, it was believed to have been a clear-cut case of murder suicide.
-
I imagine they were as we know that there were two pairs of boy's trousers in one bucket, and two pairs of knickers in the other.............although for the life of me, I can't think why they'd have thought it necessary. After all, it was believed to have been a clear-cut case of murder suicide.
Thanks for the info Jane.Maybe the police were checking the buckets for bullet casings or something,and noted the contents while they were at it.
-
Sorry Roch, but the only irony I'm aware of is the lengths you go to putting forward another pathologist as being correct in order to discredit Vanezis. At least Vanezis saw the bodies, even if he didn't see them in situ. I can only say I believe any whimsy to be your own.
Jane, that's because you don't yet understand what you're looking at.
-
Living in a fantasy world.
On this issue, you're like the forum's own Boris Johnson. Nowhere to hide, clinging on as if you can still snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, guilters your only friends. 😏
You are being asked questions of substance. But your replies lack any substance whatsoever.
-
On this issue, you're like the forum's own Boris Johnson. Nowhere to hide, clinging on as if you can still snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, guilters your only friends. 😏
You are being asked questions of substance. But your replies lack any substance whatsoever.
"Your replies lack any substance whatsoever"!!!! Now who does that sound like? Please don't go there, Roch.
-
"Your replies lack any substance whatsoever"!!!! Now who does that sound like? Please don't go there, Roch.
Check my questions to David and then compare David's answers in response. How am I wrong in asserting that my questions to him have substance, whereas his answers lack substance? Sorry Jane but you come across like you don't want to understand this issue.
-
Exactly Roch,of course she could have changed her clothes without washing.Lookout thinks there was a third bucket.Did you ever read my post about the lack of blood found on Sheila?Maybe there simply didn't need to be much blood on her night dress.June would have been badly wounded before any scuffle with Sheila,and probably just made a grab at her once the rifle was empty,she would not have been fit to struggle with Sheila and get her blood all over her.
I did not see your post. However, I think it's possible regarding your suggestion that June might have been wounded when she struggled with Sheila. Sheila fought without the impediment of gunshot wounds. She probably also had the element of surprise. In addition to this, how could Nevill and June have predicted the lethality of her assault? I imagine that it would have been a nightmare for June and Nevill, in the most horrifying sense of that term.
-
I can only see two buckets in the crime scene photos Lookout.
Snow, in AE's statement, she said three buckets.
-
Snow, in AE's statement, she said three buckets.
Thanks Lookout,I did not know that,will check it out.
-
Check my questions to David and then compare David's answers in response. How am I wrong in asserting that my questions to him have substance, whereas his answers lack substance? Sorry Jane but you come across like you don't want to understand this issue.
I can certainly see that you believe your questions have substance........
I did not see your post. However, I think it's possible regarding your suggestion that June might have been wounded when she struggled with Sheila. Sheila fought without the impediment of gunshot wounds. She probably also had the element of surprise. In addition to this, how could Nevill and June have predicted the lethality of her assault? I imagine that it would have been a nightmare for June and Nevill, in the most horrifying sense of that term.
........I can also see that some of your posts, on this subject, are becoming "off the wall" in desperate attempts to find something which points to JB's innocence. What you offer is pure conjecture, ie, it could be X, it could be Y, it might even be Z, leaving me uncertain about whether you really care, OR whether it's another opportunity to have a dig at "Establishment"
-
I can certainly see that you believe your questions have substance........
........I can also see that some of your posts, on this subject, are becoming "off the wall" in desperate attempts to find something which points to JB's innocence. What you offer is pure conjecture, ie, it could be X, it could be Y, it might even be Z, leaving me uncertain about whether you really care, OR whether it's another opportunity to have a dig at "Establishment"
No Jane, it's pretty simple.
If you believe the dark spots are the end of the process, then you must believe that the underside of Sheila's wrist is the begining of the process. Therefore - you have to work out how and when the blood was transferred to the underside of the wrist.
If you believe that Sheila was killed by two shots in quick succession, then you have to factor-in that limited time frame and circs, when working out how the blood transferred to the underside of her wrist.
If however you believe that bloodstains don't of themselves puncture skin, and the dark spots are the source of the blood trails, then you must believe that underside of her wrist is the end of the process.
When factoring in that June is one of two possible assailants who could have caused such wounds, you have to take in to account that June herself received gunshot wounds. Then you have to consider whether or not June was capable of putting up a fight after having received any of her shots.
The only weapons June had were her own fingernails.
-
Snow, in AE's statement, she said three buckets.
Hi Lookout,yes I finally found it in her statement.My lord,her second statement is just about her WHOLE life story,its like a novelette.
-
No Jane, it's pretty simple.
If you believe the dark spots are the end of the process, then you must believe that the underside of Sheila's wrist is the begining of the process. Therefore - you have to work out how and when the blood was transferred to the underside of the wrist.
If you believe that Sheila was killed by two shots in quick succession, then you have to factor-in that limited time frame and circs, when working out how the blood transferred to the underside of her wrist.
If however you believe that bloodstains don't of themselves puncture skin, and the dark spots are the source of the blood trails, then you must believe that underside of her wrist is the end of the process.
When factoring in that June is one of two possible assailants who could have caused such wounds, you have to take in to account that June herself received gunshot wounds. Then you have to consider whether or not June was capable of putting up a fight after having received any of her shots.
The only weapons June had were her own fingernails.
And do we have evidence of June's fingernails being long enough to inflict wounds deep enough to run with blood?
-
And do we have evidence of June's fingernails being long enough to inflict wounds deep enough to run with blood?
Sorry Jane, but the fingernails don't have to be like talons to inflict injuries. Pressure used by having short nails digging in can induce painful depressed injuries as they have to use more force.
-
Except nails that are bitten right down, but I can't imagine that June had that nasty habit.
Come to think, were the indentations ever measured ? I doubt it somehow.
-
And do we have evidence of June's fingernails being long enough to inflict wounds deep enough to run with blood?
We have evidence that Jeremy's fingernails weren't long. Neither is it the police case that Jeremy inflicted fingernail marks on Sheila's wrist.
Therefore we can safely assume that either Nevill or June were responsible for the wounds. It's interesting that Nevill has marks on his forum which Vanezis attributed to the rifle barrel (without a silencer). Evrn though not a single person on here can provide an explanation for how Sheila or Jeremy could achieve that on Nevill's forearm. David's claim that Nevill shielded his face being the closest attempt.
-
We have evidence that Jeremy's fingernails weren't long. Neither is it the police case that Jeremy inflicted fingernail marks on Sheila's wrist.
Therefore we can safely assume that either Nevill or June were responsible for the wounds. It's interesting that Nevill has marks on his forum which Vanezis attributed to the rifle barrel (without a silencer). Evrn though not a single person on here can provide an explanation for how Sheila or Jeremy could achieve that on Nevill's forearm. David's claim that Nevill shielded his face being the closest attempt.
Bernard Knight came to the same conclusion a Vanezis.
Cross examination by Arlidge QC.
"Q. Can you see the roundish marks that are there? Roundish,
small bruising marks?
A. Yes.
Q. Are those the sort of things you would expect from
someone being prodded?
A. The upper ones are obviously from impact of a linear or rod
like object.
Q. What looks as if it has happened on the upper ones is that
someone has jabbed at something long and thin and it has
gone right across the skin, has it not?
A. Yes. Some of this peeling is obviously post mortem, but the
other ones are just bruises. They are so non-specific one
cannot tell what caused them.
Q. But you have got one lot where you can see that something
has been jabbed at the person
A. Yes."
-
We have evidence that Jeremy's fingernails weren't long. Neither is it the police case that Jeremy inflicted fingernail marks on Sheila's wrist.
Therefore we can safely assume that either Nevill or June were responsible for the wounds. It's interesting that Nevill has marks on his forum which Vanezis attributed to the rifle barrel (without a silencer). Evrn though not a single person on here can provide an explanation for how Sheila or Jeremy could achieve that on Nevill's forearm. David's claim that Nevill shielded his face being the closest attempt.
If you're going to insist in the claim that the marks on Sheila's arm were inflicted by fingernails, I feel justified in putting forward the suggestion of them being her own.
-
If you're going to insist in the claim that the marks on Sheila's arm were inflicted by fingernails, I feel justified in putting forward the suggestion of them being her own.
You can put forward this suggestion. But I'm not sure how feasible it is.
-
Self-harm goes with the condition that Sheila had.
-
Strange how the contact marks between Sheila and June or Sheila and Nevill never damaged her nail varnish in the slightest.
-
Strange how the contact marks between Sheila and June or Sheila and Nevill never damaged her nail varnish in the slightest.
Steve,it wouldn't have damaged the nail varnish. It's impervious when it comes to digging in flesh.
-
Sheila had used false nails. Were they applied after the murders ? If so, what about the state of her natural nails before they were covered ? One such false nail had been found by AE which either couldn't have adhered properly or had fallen out of its container before being applied.
The fingernail gouges which were found would have been before the false nails were applied as the false nails would have left more prominent pierced marks due to their shape . The nail marks that we see were made with shorter nails which gave more of a grip.
A reason why Sheila had appeared to have had perfectly manicured nails ! In the aftermath of the killings, Sheila had showered,changed into her nightdress and gave herself a manicure.
-
Sheila had used false nails. Were they applied after the murders ? If so, what about the state of her natural nails before they were covered ? One such false nail had been found by AE which either couldn't have adhered properly or had fallen out of its container before being applied.
The fingernail gouges which were found would have been before the false nails were applied as the false nails would have left more prominent pierced marks due to their shape . The nail marks that we see were made with shorter nails which gave more of a grip.
A reason why Sheila had appeared to have had perfectly manicured nails ! In the aftermath of the killings, Sheila had showered,changed into her nightdress and gave herself a manicure.
But in the weeks preceding the massacre she always had to be prompted by friends to make herself up, especially to wash. Your scenario to my mind is not inconceivable but improbable.
-
Sheila had used false nails. Were they applied after the murders ? If so, what about the state of her natural nails before they were covered ? One such false nail had been found by AE which either couldn't have adhered properly or had fallen out of its container before being applied.
The fingernail gouges which were found would have been before the false nails were applied as the false nails would have left more prominent pierced marks due to their shape . The nail marks that we see were made with shorter nails which gave more of a grip.
A reason why Sheila had appeared to have had perfectly manicured nails ! In the aftermath of the killings, Sheila had showered,changed into her nightdress and gave herself a manicure.
A manicure after the massacre.
;D
-
A manicure after the massacre.
;D
It's quite common for people about to commit suicide Adam to wash clean etc. they can take a great deal of time as well.
-
A manicure after the massacre.
;D
I'm glad you find this amusing----NOT ! There HAD been time after the murders for Sheila to have showered, put on her night clothes and generally get herself " back to normal " by making herself look presentable after death which included the appearance of her nails. Sheila even had time for a small snack in the interim, as noted by the contents remaining in her stomach of which none were found in the other members of the family.
-
Does anyone know whether it was ever pinpointed, exactly where this image came from and exactly who it depicts?
Hi Roch,hope your well.If you read about JBs alibi in the Official Campaign Site,I think you will find that they are describing this very photo.They say it was taken at the morgue like was suspected.Maybe you have noticed this yourself by now?
-
Oh,and that it is Sheila!