Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: snow66! on May 31, 2022, 10:21:PM
-
Hello everyone,i would like to take another look at the livor mortis issue.Vanezis stated that livor mortis or hypostasis as he called it was well established in the adult victims.This is no surprise as they had been dead for over 12hrs if JB was guilty before any autopsies were done.Livor mortis is visible about two hrs after death,becomes bright red after 3-4 hrs and is at a maximum state after 6-8hrs turning a blue/purple colour.Lividity is fixed after 8-12 hrs after the blood has congealed and can no longer move.Anyway if Sheila died about 2.30, by the time Bird took the crime scene photos between 10 and 12.15 eight hours or more had passed,so livor mortis should have been well established or at its maximum by then.Any visible staining should have been bright red at least,if not purple.So,if sheila died at 2.30 any visible staining should just about be at maximum colour,yet there is nothing obvious in the crime scene photos anywhere on her arms or legs.There should have been staining by this time ,8hrs after death,But maybe in Sheilas case there simply wasn't going to be much staining.If this was the case,then the photos that Bird took at the morgue should be no different,showing little staining on Sheilas arms or legs.If however the autopsy photos were to show obvious blue patches on her arms or legs that were not present in the crime scene photos,this may change everything.It could mean that Sheila did indeed die much later than the other victims,and had only been dead between 2.5-3hrs when the crime scene photos were taken,hence very little visible staining was present caused by livor mortis at that stage.But,by the time she was taken to the morgue liver mortis was well established just a Vanezis said.So,if there is obvious blue staining on Sheilas arms/legs in the morgue photos and not in the crime scene photos,i think this points to Sheila dying much later than 2.30 and Bambers innocence.Obviously you would need to see the morgue photos to test this theory out.Any thoughts?
-
At room temperature lividity begins 2hrs after death,and lividity is permanent after 8hrs.Room temp=21degrees celsius. Any warmer,lividity will happen quicker.Any colder lividity will be slower.
-
Lividity was more than likely at a maximum colour and permanently fixed before Sheila was moved and taken to the morgue IF she died at 2.30 or there abouts.It was the height of summer,so couldn't have been very cold through the night inside the Whitehouse.
-
Any thoughts?
Hi 'Snow..'
Some of the crime scene photographs/images which are [now] available in the public domain, were not 'disclosed to the defence' , or 'known about' by 'the public at large'. This was /is because 'everyone' was tricked into accepting that 'the Essex Police photographic album' entitled 'THE MASTER COPY' album, consisting of 358 photographs, and that 'PC Bird' had taken 'all of the crime scene' and 'autopsy photographs'. That 'HE' had taken 'all of the 358 images'
-
Livor Mortis has come up before. Would be interested to read other members' opinions on this.
-
Hi 'Snow..'
Some of the crime scene photographs/images which are [now] available in the public domain, were not 'disclosed to the defence' , or 'known about' by 'the public at large'. This was /is because 'everyone' was tricked into accepting that 'the Essex Police photographic album' entitled 'THE MASTER COPY' album, consisting of 358 photographs, and that 'PC Bird' had taken 'all of the crime scene' and 'autopsy photographs'. That 'HE' had taken 'all of the 358 images'
Hi mike,do you think the defence saw any of the morgue photos?
-
Sheila and June died in the same room,at the same time,in roughlly the same position.Therefore the lividity staining should be roughly the same.High res photos of June should be able to distinguish what is blood stains and what is blue/purple lividity staining on her legs,Sheilas should match.
-
It was probably a warm night on 7th Aug,or the main bedroom window would not have been opened three inches.Full lividity should have taken place after 8hrs.
-
We know that livor mortis staining had taken place by the time Sheila was at the morgue because Vanezis states it was well established.But was it on her arms and legs?
-
Yes. From the crime scene photos you can see June is in a much more advanced stage of livor mortis than Sheila is. This indicates Sheila died at a later stage than June did.
-
Yes. From the crime scene photos you can see June is in a much more advanced stage of livor mortis than Sheila is. This indicates Sheila died at a later stage than June did.
Thanks Dave,i wasn't sure what may be blood stains and what could be lividity stains.No doubt better images would show up the blue patches.
-
Yes. From the crime scene photos you can see June is in a much more advanced stage of livor mortis than Sheila is. This indicates Sheila died at a later stage than June did.
So,you agree morgue photos may show blue patches on Sheilas legs/arms Dave,proving lividity set in much later than June?
-
Rigor mortis occurs more rapidly in the very old because they have lower muscle mass.
----------
June was 34 years older than Sheila. That is if the photos do show anything, which I doubt. Need more than David's unqualified view.
I do admire Snow66!'s tenancity. Searching for something, anything.
-
When Julie referred to 'bruises' could she have actually been referring to Livor Mortis?
-
When Julie referred to 'bruises' could she have actually been referring to Livor Mortis?
Well reasoned, Roch. Possibly so.
-
When Julie referred to 'bruises' could she have actually been referring to Livor Mortis?
In the case of Sheila and June Liver Mortis would have been mostly on their backs, bottoms and underside of their legs. I assume they were covered and Julie only saw their faces so I don't think this explains the marks that Julie thought were bruises?
-
Rigor mortis occurs more rapidly in the very old because they have lower muscle mass.
----------
June was 34 years older than Sheila. That is if the photos do show anything, which I doubt. Need more than David's unqualified view.
I do admire Snow66!'s tenancity. Searching for something, anything.
Hi Adam,it is livor mortis we are discussing at the moment,the purple staining that occurs after death.
-
In the case of Sheila and June Liver Mortis would have been mostly on their backs, bottoms and underside of their legs. I assume they were covered and Julie only saw their faces so I don't think this explains the marks that Julie thought were bruises?
Good point Rob.
-
And what about Dr Craig,he should have known roughly how long Sheila had been dead.There are a number of easy ways to tell by the different stages of livor mortis.His statement seems more concerned with the upheaval in the kitchen and what type of rifle was lying on Sheila.I cant believe that he didnt make some sort of educated guess at times of death.Wouldn't the police have asked him for a rough idea? One look at Sheilas skin and a prod about at it would have been enough.Craig must have known how much lividity was present on each victim.Where are his notes? He was the first physician to see the bodies,his information should have been invaluable.Did he give any evidence at Trial?
-
Is Dr Craig still alive? Why dont they interview someone like him for their documentaries and ask the questions we all want to know about.
-
The three adults should have been assessed on the state of livor mortis in judging their times of deaths. It takes about half an hour before it sets in from the time of death and is more pronounced where the most weight of the body has been, though the face is the first because of the lack of dense muscle.
-
Rigor mortis occurs more rapidly in the very old because they have lower muscle mass.
----------
June was 34 years older than Sheila. That is if the photos do show anything, which I doubt. Need more than David's unqualified view.
I do admire Snow66!'s tenancity. Searching for something, anything.
I agree Adam that with the very old and the very young rigour mortis occurs more rapidly because as you say they have lower muscle mass.
However June can hardly be described as very old! also June and Sheila had similar body types (both very thin) they were in the same room so both at the same ambient temperature and according to the prosecution died at the same time? So to me Sheila's lack of rigour / livor needs more investigation?
I would love to see Taff's original notes, because it's my guess that it was the appearance of Sheila that convinced him it was suicide?
-
The three adults should have been assessed on the state of livor mortis in judging their times of deaths. It takes about half an hour before it sets in from the time of death and is more pronounced where the most weight of the body has been, though the face is the first because of the lack of dense muscle.
Hi Lookout,this is what it says in CALs book page 177----Dr Craigs duty that morning was primarily to certify death and inform officers of any specific observations.He was not required to take body temperetures unless specifically asked.Nor was it general practice within Essex Police to estimate times of death based on that method without consulting a pathologist.Dr Craig could only estimate that the deaths at White House Farm had occurred 'some hours'before, within 'a short time' of each other;...... Is Craig trying to say lividity was at the same stage for each victim? Where is his documentation to prove this? Funny that the crime scene photos dont show any obvious purple patches on Sheila.
-
I agree Adam that with the very old and the very young rigour mortis occurs more rapidly because as you say they have lower muscle mass.
However June can hardly be described as very old! also June and Sheila had similar body types (both very thin) they were in the same room so both at the same ambient temperature and according to the prosecution died at the same time? So to me Sheila's lack of rigour / livor needs more investigation?
I would love to see Taff's original notes, because it's my guess that it was the appearance of Sheila that convinced him it was suicide?
Yes Rob,and i am sure Dr Graig would have confirmed that she had not been dead very long.
-
Yes Rob,and i am sure Dr Graig would have confirmed that she had not been dead very long.
Any homicide detective who has seen a lot of deceased bodies would know Snow, on average rigour starts around 2 to 4 hours and shows in the face / fingers first. The crime scene photos of Sheila are around 8 hours after death and not the slightest sign of rigour is present.
-
From CALs book page 346 referring to his court appearance-------Dr Craig explained how difficult it was to establish a time of death;'It could have been any time during that night.'------Wow what an expert in the field of medicine,i presume this man was knighted by the Queen! I am in awe!
-
From CALs book page 346 referring to his court appearance-------Dr Craig explained how difficult it was to establish a time of death;'It could have been any time during that night.'------Wow what an expert in the field of medicine,i presume this man was knighted by the Queen! I am in awe!
Well you only have to look at June and Sheila to see that something is amiss Snow, even if you were not sure of the time of death they both according to the prosecution died at the same time.
-
Well you only have to look at June and Sheila to see that something is amiss Snow, even if you were not sure of the time of death they both according to the prosecution died at the same time.
Well,for a JB scenario they had to die about the same time Rob.Yet no evidence exists to prove this,if there was,it would have shut up the innocence brigade years ago when they started claiming Sheila died much later than the others.That means any documentation regarding time of death MUST indeed point to Sheila dying long after the others.What other reason could there be for witholding the morgue photos.Surely the guilters must see that withholding photos and destroying evidence is very suspicious indeed,and must cause doubt about Bambers guilt.
-
I will say again why didn't Craig or even Vanezis explain why they knew the victims died about the same time.That should not have been hard to explain in order to shut doubters up,surely.
-
Well,for a JB scenario they had to die about the same time Rob.Yet no evidence exists to prove this,if there was,it would have shut up the innocence brigade years ago when they started claiming Sheila died much later than the others.That means any documentation regarding time of death MUST indeed point to Sheila dying long after the others.What other reason could there be for witholding the morgue photos.Surely the guilters must see that withholding photos and destroying evidence is very suspicious indeed,and must cause doubt about Bambers guilt.
?
-
Well,for a JB scenario they had to die about the same time Rob.Yet no evidence exists to prove this,if there was,it would have shut up the innocence brigade years ago when they started claiming Sheila died much later than the others.That means any documentation regarding time of death MUST indeed point to Sheila dying long after the others.What other reason could there be for witholding the morgue photos.Surely the guilters must see that withholding photos and destroying evidence is very suspicious indeed,and must cause doubt about Bambers guilt.
Well at the moment Snow I have no doubt, perhaps if Adam can buck his ideas up he might introduce some doubt we will see ;)
-
Well at the moment Snow I have no doubt, perhaps if Adam can buck his ideas up he might introduce some doubt we will see ;)
Is 75 pieces of COA forensic evidence not enough?
A straight forward Bamber scenario has also been supplied. Matching the crime scene evidence.
-
Is 75 pieces of COA forensic evidence not enough?
A straight forward Bamber scenario has also been supplied. Matching the crime scene evidence.
But it's not a straight forward Bamber scenario Adam, he was undertaking a extremely risky crime and carried it out in such a way that the police only had two possible suspects and he was one of them.
A Sheila scenario is simple, only one question: could she have loaded the magazine? I think she could.
-
But it's not a straight forward Bamber scenario Adam, he was undertaking a extremely risky crime and carried it out in such a way that the police only had two possible suspects and he was one of them.
A Sheila scenario is simple, only one question: could she have loaded the magazine? I think she could.
Or possibly used two different rifles Rob.
-
?
Whats the question mark for Adam,do you mean Bamber has got the morgue photos?
-
Whats the question mark for Adam,do you mean Bamber has got the morgue photos?
I am not sure Snow but Adam always claims that nothing is withheld! he must be referring to another case!
-
Or possibly used two different rifles Rob.
Maybe Snow but the magazine is easy to load if you don't fully load it say seven or eight bullets.
-
I am not sure Snow but Adam always claims that nothing is withheld! he must be referring to another case!
Well,Yvonne and the team were petitioning Essex Police last year for full disclosure Rob,as you know.
-
Maybe Snow but the magazine is easy to load if you don't fully load it say seven or eight bullets.
I must admit,i have absolutely no knowledge of rifles with magazines at all Rob,or how easy they are to load or operate,ie safety catches etc.
-
I must admit,i have absolutely no knowledge of rifles with magazines at all Rob,or how easy they are to load or operate,ie safety catches etc.
The rifle was low powered little kick back so easy to use, I have seen videos claiming a child could use the
anshutz rifle used in the killings.
-
The rifle was low powered little kick back so easy to use, I have seen videos claiming a child could use the
anshutz rifle used in the killings.
But was it easy to work out how to use it with no prior knowledge Rob?
-
But was it easy to work out how to use it with no prior knowledge Rob?
She had lived on a farm most of her life she would have seen guns being used many times, so I think she would have known how they work.
-
She had lived on a farm most of her life she would have seen guns being used many times, so I think she would have known how they work.
Yes probably Rob,and i dont think it would take a genius to work out how to use it anyway.I wouldn't mind handling one to evaluate this.
-
Quote from Roger Wilkes book'Blood Relations' page 27-------What struck Stan Jones in particular was the marble whiteness of Sheila's arms and legs.-------Sounds more like pallor mortis than livor mortis.Definately no mention of bright red or purple legs/arms from Stan anyway.
-
Dr Ian Craig had 27yrs experience as a POLICE SURGEON.Yet could only tell the court that the victims died at sometime the night before.
-
Are police surgeons required to carry notebooks?
-
Vanezis stated that rigor mortis and hypostasis was well established in both Nevill and Sheila at autopsy.This was slightly misleading,because even if Sheila died at 7.45 rigor mortis and livot motris would still have been well established at autopsy by about 4.30 in the afternoon.So his statement about rigor mortis and lividity being well established means nothing by that time EVIDENCE wise.It is Dr Craig who should have given sworn testimony at trial about each victims state of livor mortis.Was he cross examined by the defence about this?Or was the defence unaware Sheila may have died later because of lack of disclosure?
-
Vanezis stated that rigor mortis and hypostasis was well established in both Nevill and Sheila at autopsy.This was slightly misleading,because even if Sheila died at 7.45 rigor mortis and livot motris would still have been well established at autopsy by about 4.30 in the afternoon.So his statement about rigor mortis and lividity being well established means nothing by that time EVIDENCE wise.It is Dr Craig who should have given sworn testimony at trial about each victims state of livor mortis.Was he cross examined by the defence about this?Or was the defence unaware Sheila may have died later because of lack of disclosure?
To be fair to Dr Craig he was only certifying death, though I find his statement a bit strange he only mentions one wound, kitchen in disarray, bullet case on landing etc.
-
Vanezis stated that rigor mortis and hypostasis was well established in both Nevill and Sheila at autopsy.This was slightly misleading,because even if Sheila died at 7.45 rigor mortis and livot motris would still have been well established at autopsy by about 4.30 in the afternoon.So his statement about rigor mortis and lividity being well established means nothing by that time EVIDENCE wise.It is Dr Craig who should have given sworn testimony at trial about each victims state of livor mortis.Was he cross examined by the defence about this?Or was the defence unaware Sheila may have died later because of lack of disclosure?
There has been much discussion here regarding Dr Craig, his sobriety, or lack, thereof, and those tasks posters believe him to have been negligent in performing. The only requirement of Dr Craig was that of confirming life to be extinct, which he satisfactorily did. Whilst it has been claimed on numerous occasions that he allegedly failed to notice that Sheila had sustained two wounds, it has to be remembered that he didn't count the number of bullet wounds on any of the other victims, either, claiming only, and correctly, that they appeared to have died from gunshot wounds. His task was fulfilled. It was then over to the pathologist, who, quite properly, should have been called to attend. It seems we may have TJ's insistence that it was 'just' a case of murder/suicide to thank for the grievous oversight.
-
The rifle was low powered little kick back so easy to use, I have seen videos claiming a child could use the
anshutz rifle used in the killings.
Agree with that.
No threat to a fully fit Nevill.
-
Quote from Roger Wilkes book'Blood Relations' page 27-------What struck Stan Jones in particular was the marble whiteness of Sheila's arms and legs.-------Sounds more like pallor mortis than livor mortis.Definately no mention of bright red or purple legs/arms from Stan anyway.
What do you think of CAL's & Wilkes books?
What did you think of the CAL & CC audio interviews?
-
This is an extract from Bernard Knights 5/9/86 witness statement on the time of death issue.
“In general, I have little criticism of the way in which Dr. Vanezis
conducted his post mortems, especially bearing in mind that he
had five cases to deal with in a short space of time. Perhaps the
major criticism would be his lack of any attempt to estimate the
time of death. I fully realise that this is a very inaccurate exercise,
but temperatures of bodies at the scene should have been taken
for completeness sake in case some very unusual result was
obtained. I realise that he was not called to the scene (or did not
arrive) until much later than is the usual practice of most Home
Office pathologists, but this is due to the different conditions which
pertain in and around London. Also his description of the actual
external appearance of the bullet wounds are perhaps not as full as
one would like, in terms of description of exact size, extent and
appearance of powder marks, burns, abrasion colour etc., but
again he was undoubtedly working under pressure. In general the
examinations were quite adequate.”
-
Re Bernard Knight, I've just watched him in a documentary about the hunt for a lost serial killer. The 'Jack the Stripper' murders in early 60's West London.
-
What do you think of CAL's & Wilkes books?
What did you think of the CAL & CC audio interviews?
Hi Adam,i dont see much wrong with either book,they both explain that Bamber maintains his innocence and quote some of his correspondence from jail.They just explain the background of the Bambers and what took place,then its left to you to decide what happened that night.What more is there to say.As for the audio interviews,i am afraid i have not listened to them yet,did you post links for them both? If not i am sure i will find them on the web.
-
Hi Adam,i dont see much wrong with either book,they both explain that Bamber maintains his innocence and quote some of his correspondence from jail.They just explain the background of the Bambers and what took place,then its left to you to decide what happened that night.What more is there to say.As for the audio interviews,i am afraid i have not listened to them yet,did you post links for them both? If not i am sure i will find them on the web.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11238.msg520470.html#msg520470
Two here & one with CC.
-
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11238.msg520470.html#msg520470
Two here & one with CC.
Thanks Adam,i will let you know when i have watched them.
-
This is an extract from Bernard Knights 5/9/86 witness statement on the time of death issue.
“In general, I have little criticism of the way in which Dr. Vanezis
conducted his post mortems, especially bearing in mind that he
had five cases to deal with in a short space of time. Perhaps the
major criticism would be his lack of any attempt to estimate the
time of death. I fully realise that this is a very inaccurate exercise,
but temperatures of bodies at the scene should have been taken
for completeness sake in case some very unusual result was
obtained. I realise that he was not called to the scene (or did not
arrive) until much later than is the usual practice of most Home
Office pathologists, but this is due to the different conditions which
pertain in and around London. Also his description of the actual
external appearance of the bullet wounds are perhaps not as full as
one would like, in terms of description of exact size, extent and
appearance of powder marks, burns, abrasion colour etc., but
again he was undoubtedly working under pressure. In general the
examinations were quite adequate.”
But the thing is Dave,Dr Craig saw the bodies at the crime scene and stated the victims all died around the same time.Now just how did he know this? You cant make that statement without producing some medical evidence to back it up.Was he reffering to rigor mortis stiffness or lividity staining? And if he checked these things he must have had a rough idea of time of death.So regardless of Vanezis's competence,it is Dr Craig who should have been interrogated regarding times of death,after all he must have examined the bodies to a fair degree,or how else could he confirm the victims died at about the same time.It is Craigs notes that should be tracked down to gain the truth,he is the ONLY one who knew if Sheila died at a later time.Maybe that is why Knight criticised Vanezis,so that the attention was taken away from Craig,the only man with any idea of when the victims died.And dosen't it seem odd how little Craig said at trial? He gets very little mention in any of the books either.
-
But the thing is Dave,Dr Craig saw the bodies at the crime scene and stated the victims all died around the same time.Now just how did he know this? You cant make that statement without producing some medical evidence to back it up.Was he reffering to rigor mortis stiffness or lividity staining? And if he checked these things he must have had a rough idea of time of death.So regardless of Vanezis's competence,it is Dr Craig who should have been interrogated regarding times of death,after all he must have examined the bodies to a fair degree,or how else could he confirm the victims died at about the same time.It is Craigs notes that should be tracked down to gain the truth,he is the ONLY one who knew if Sheila died at a later time.Maybe that is why Knight criticised Vanezis,so that the attention was taken away from Craig,the only man with any idea of when the victims died.And dosen't it seem odd how little Craig said at trial? He gets very little mention in any of the books either.
Dr Craig was not a pathologist. Just some local GP with an alcohol problem. He only spent 15 minutes inside the crime scene and his observations where so poor he failed to notice Sheila had two gunshot wounds. Nothing from Dr Craig has much value at all.
It was not his job to determine the time of death. However, he should have taken the body temperatures for the record and passed them onto Vanezis. Had he done, none of this saga would have happened.
-
Dr Craig was not a pathologist. Just some local GP with an alcohol problem. He only spent 15 minutes inside the crime scene and his observations where so poor he failed to notice Sheila had two gunshot wounds. Nothing from Dr Craig has much value at all.
It was not his job to determine the time of death. However, he should have taken the body temperatures for the record and passed them onto Vanezis. Had he done, none of this saga would have happened.
But you are not listening Dave,he must have had time to check the bodies and conclude that they all died at the same time.He testified the victims all died arround the same time.So,when the 'two bodies downstairs' argument came to light,all Dr Craig had to do was produce the documentation proving that the victims did indeed die around the same time.Or,AT LEAST give a statement about his findings at the scene of the crime sxplaining to doubters how he came to his conclusions.The fact that has done neither is very suspicious.And even if he was dead by the time the two bodies came about,the police could have surely produced some documentation on his behalf.Anyway that is why i think it is important to view the morgue photos,which could hopefully shed some light on times of death.
-
And remember he was a police surgeon for 27yrs Dave,so he wasn't just a GP.
-
But you are not listening Dave,he must have had time to check the bodies and conclude that they all died at the same time.He testified the victims all died arround the same time.So,when the 'two bodies downstairs' argument came to light,all Dr Craig had to do was produce the documentation proving that the victims did indeed die around the same time.Or,AT LEAST give a statement about his findings at the scene of the crime sxplaining to doubters how he came to his conclusions.The fact that has done neither is very suspicious.And even if he was dead by the time the two bodies came about,the police could have surely produced some documentation on his behalf.Anyway that is why i think it is important to view the morgue photos,which could hopefully shed some light on times of death.
Dr Craigs comments on the time of death have no value. He was making comments he was not qualified to make.
-
And remember he was a police surgeon for 27yrs Dave,so he wasn't just a GP.
A police surgeon is just a GP who has agreed to be on call to help the local police department should they need it. He was only called out to WHF to help any potential survivors. In retrospect he was not needed there at all.
He was once the local GP for a member on this forum BTW.
-
A police surgeon is just a GP who has agreed to be on call to help the local police department should they need it. He was only called out to WHF to help any potential survivors. In retrospect he was not needed there at all.
He was once the local GP for a member on this forum BTW.
So,what you are saying is he told a lie when he stated the victims died around the same time Dave.So,again i will say,we need to see the morgue photos to compare them with the crime scene photos for livor mortis staining comparison.
-
He who only saw one gun shot with his 22 years service under his belt ::) Specsavers or what ? Grants maybe.
-
So,what you are saying is he told a lie when he stated the victims died around the same time Dave.So,again i will say,we need to see the morgue photos to compare them with the crime scene photos for livor mortis staining comparison.
Not lying, just guessing. Moreover there is some ambiguity in what he actually said.
"In cross-examination at the trial he said the deaths could have occurred at any time during the previous night."
could have occurred at any time? - In other words he does not know what time and could be any time.
-
He who only saw one gun shot with his 22 years service under his belt ::) Specsavers or what ? Grants maybe.
Hi Lookout,i think it was 32yrs service with 27yrs as a police surgeon.There is one thing for sure,if Sheila had only been dead about an hour when he seen her,he must have noticed this no matter how inept or drunk he was.
-
Not lying, just guessing. Moreover there is some ambiguity in what he actually said.
"In cross-examination at the trial he said the deaths could have occurred at any time during the previous night."
could have occurred at any time? - In other words he does not know what time and could be any time.
Yes i understand that Dave,but the main thing is,he stated the victims died at the SAME time.Why highlight that fact at all? At trial no one had reason to question this,neither the prosecution nor the defence.Only after the 'Two Bodies' came to light,was this of any relevance.It seems the police had to state this fact in some sort of preparation for it being queried.
-
There has been much discussion here regarding Dr Craig, his sobriety, or lack, thereof, and those tasks posters believe him to have been negligent in performing. The only requirement of Dr Craig was that of confirming life to be extinct, which he satisfactorily did. Whilst it has been claimed on numerous occasions that he allegedly failed to notice that Sheila had sustained two wounds, it has to be remembered that he didn't count the number of bullet wounds on any of the other victims, either, claiming only, and correctly, that they appeared to have died from gunshot wounds. His task was fulfilled. It was then over to the pathologist, who, quite properly, should have been called to attend. It seems we may have TJ's insistence that it was 'just' a case of murder/suicide to thank for the grievous oversight.
Hiya Jane,hope youv'e been keeping well.Now,the thing is the topic is not about Dr Craig missing the two wounds,or the fact he liked a nip or two.It is about trying to work out when Sheila died,for obvious reasons.Now as you know Craig stated the victims all died around the same time,but what evidence did he have to prove this? Is there any notes or documents he made relating to the fact? Was it his observations of rigor mortis or livor mortis in the victims? How else do you check for time of death apart from temperature? Anyway there dosent seem to be any purple staining on Sheilas arms/legs,which there should have been on the crime scene photos taken about 8hrs after death.And when Stan Jones saw Sheilas body he was taken aback at how white her arms and legs were,no mention of red or purple patches.So,just how long had she been dead Jane? Maybe there simply wasn't going to be much obvious staining on Sheilas arms or legs,but as i have said,if this is the case then the morgue photos should match livot mortis staining.If there is no staining on Sheilas legs or arms in the morgue photos,then fair enough,but we need to see them to know.Make any sense to you Jane?
-
Hiya Jane,hope youv'e been keeping well.Now,the thing is the topic is not about Dr Craig missing the two wounds,or the fact he liked a nip or two.It is about trying to work out when Sheila died,for obvious reasons.Now as you know Craig stated the victims all died around the same time,but what evidence did he have to prove this? Is there any notes or documents he made relating to the fact? Was it his observations of rigor mortis or livor mortis in the victims? How else do you check for time of death apart from temperature? Anyway there dosent seem to be any purple staining on Sheilas arms/legs,which there should have been on the crime scene photos taken about 8hrs after death.And when Stan Jones saw Sheilas body he was taken aback at how white her arms and legs were,no mention of red or purple patches.So,just how long had she been dead Jane? Maybe there simply wasn't going to be much obvious staining on Sheilas arms or legs,but as i have said,if this is the case then the morgue photos should match livot mortis staining.If there is no staining on Sheilas legs or arms in the morgue photos,then fair enough,but we need to see them to know.Make any sense to you Jane?
Snow, perhaps we should be clear about Dr Craig's alleged drinking. It was originally claimed by a member here who had a rather less than agreeable relationship with him and can be said to have had an agenda. This view was perpetuated because it suited supporters' agenda of believing JB innocent, no matter whose reputation was destroyed in the cause. At the time, I was probably among them.
I think it needs pointing out that, at that time, it was customary for doctors to carry a flask of 'something' around with them. Things were rather different then. It was probably believed that a nip of alcohol was good for someone who was in shock, not to mention a 'reviver' for tired doctors. I believe it has been claimed that he had alcohol on his breath. Such would occur after one nip or ten, and does it not seem strange that, given the doctor's NHS catchment area, plus his police duties, that only one patient complained about him?
Regarding your criticism of his failure to take the victims' temperatures, taking rectal temperatures would have necessitated the movement of bodies. Such was outside of his remit. With all his years of professional experience, he was fully entitled, and able, to pass an opinion. God knows, enough of us do it here and few of us are qualified to do so. Indeed, you've made the sweeping claim that "there doesn't seem to be any purple staining..........." -an amazing conclusion to draw from poor photos- yet Julie, who saw them, seems to thing the bodies were bruised. Might that 'bruising' have been livor mortis?
As I've previously said, Dr Craig's only job was to pronounce life extinct. Nothing more. The professional who should have been present at such a huge murder scene -indeed, he said he'd been available- but wasn't called, was the pathologist. That oversight can, it seems, be lain directly at Taff Jones' door. because, convinced as he was that it was a straightforward case of murder/suicide believed it unnecessary.
-
Snow, perhaps we should be clear about Dr Craig's alleged drinking. It was originally claimed by a member here who had a rather less than agreeable relationship with him and can be said to have had an agenda. This view was perpetuated because it suited supporters' agenda of believing JB innocent, no matter whose reputation was destroyed in the cause. At the time, I was probably among them.
I think it needs pointing out that, at that time, it was customary for doctors to carry a flask of 'something' around with them. Things were rather different then. It was probably believed that a nip of alcohol was good for someone who was in shock, not to mention a 'reviver' for tired doctors. I believe it has been claimed that he had alcohol on his breath. Such would occur after one nip or ten, and does it not seem strange that, given the doctor's NHS catchment area, plus his police duties, that only one patient complained about him?
Regarding your criticism of his failure to take the victims' temperatures, taking rectal temperatures would have necessitated the movement of bodies. Such was outside of his remit. With all his years of professional experience, he was fully entitled, and able, to pass an opinion. God knows, enough of us do it here and few of us are qualified to do so. Indeed, you've made the sweeping claim that "there doesn't seem to be any purple staining..........." -an amazing conclusion to draw from poor photos- yet Julie, who saw them, seems to thing the bodies were bruised. Might that 'bruising' have been livor mortis?
As I've previously said, Dr Craig's only job was to pronounce life extinct. Nothing more. The professional who should have been present at such a huge murder scene -indeed, he said he'd been available- but wasn't called, was the pathologist. That oversight can, it seems, be lain directly at Taff Jones' door. because, convinced as he was that it was a straightforward case of murder/suicide believed it unnecessary.
Hi Jane.Well,i am afraid there isnt much you have said that answers any of my questions.I wasn't questioning Craig's drinking habits,only his statement that the victims died at the same time.As for the staining Julie saw at the morgue,as Rob pointed out,it is unlikely she saw the entire body of the victims,probably just the head.But as the heads were shaved,Julie would have seen the bruising at the back of them,and Nevills head and face was heavily bruised anyway without any lividity stains.BUT this has nothing to do with what i am trying to prove.Let me try and explain one more time.The crime scene photos of Sheila were taken between 10 and 12,15 on the morning after the murders.If JB was the killer Sheila was probably dead by 2.30,possibly earlier,so she had been dead roughly 8hrs.Now,in normal room temperature livor mortis is fully visible and fixed after 8hrs,so when the crime scene photos were taken,NO further stains should have appeared on Sheila at a later date,that was it,no further staining should have appeared later on at the morgue.SO,any staining on Sheilas arms or legs should be the same in both the crime scene photos and the morgue photos.Now you say it is a sweeping statement to say there is no staining on Sheila because the crime scene photos are so poor.but we do get a pretty good yiew of Sheilas legs and right arm.Just say a morgue photo shows a purple patch creeping up her forearm that is clearly not there in the crime scene photos,or one creeping up her thigh or calf,that has to be conclusive proof that livor mortis was not at an advanced stage when the crime scene photos were taken.appearing much later at the morgue.Hence Sheila must have died much later than the others,and livor mortis staining was not well established when the crime scene photos were taken.PHEW! surely i have made it clear now,what i am trying to prove Jane.Or are you being tactful like a politician,avoiding giving me a straight answer?
-
Hi Jane.Well,i am afraid there isnt much you have said that answers any of my questions.I wasn't questioning Craig's drinking habits,only his statement that the victims died at the same time.As for the staining Julie saw at the morgue,as Rob pointed out,it is unlikely she saw the entire body of the victims,probably just the head.But as the heads were shaved,Julie would have seen the bruising at the back of them,and Nevills head and face was heavily bruised anyway without any lividity stains.BUT this has nothing to do with what i am trying to prove.Let me try and explain one more time.The crime scene photos of Sheila were taken between 10 and 12,15 on the morning after the murders.If JB was the killer Sheila was probably dead by 2.30,possibly earlier,so she had been dead roughly 8hrs.Now,in normal room temperature livor mortis is fully visible and fixed after 8hrs,so when the crime scene photos were taken,NO further stains should have appeared on Sheila at a later date,that was it,no further staining should have appeared later on at the morgue.SO,any staining on Sheilas arms or legs should be the same in both the crime scene photos and the morgue photos.Now you say it is a sweeping statement to say there is no staining on Sheila because the crime scene photos are so poor.but we do get a pretty good yiew of Sheilas legs and right arm.Just say a morgue photo shows a purple patch creeping up her forearm that is clearly not there in the crime scene photos,or one creeping up her thigh or calf,that has to be conclusive proof that livor mortis was not at an advanced stage when the crime scene photos were taken.appearing much later at the morgue.Hence Sheila must have died much later than the others,and livor mortis staining was not well established when the crime scene photos were taken.PHEW! surely i have made it clear now,what i am trying to prove Jane.Or are you being tactful like a politician,avoiding giving me a straight answer?
Snow, I wonder how literally you're taking Dr Craig's assertion that "the victims died at the same time", and exactly how close a time-frame it was. It may well have been better, for the sake of clarification, had he inserted "roughly" into it, but then, what he said, wasn't for our benefit. Blood evidence suggests that it may not have been entirely as he said, given that Nevill seems to have escaped the bedroom and June appears to have crossed it before dying by the door. We do know the boys died in their beds. Other that that, it's speculation which gives rise to your many "just say's", and, indeed, ours.
To return to the discrepancy you claim of Sheila. The photos available to us are copies of copies. It might be said that they don't tell the entire truth, leaving us to see and believe what we're wanting to. It can probably be certain that the only victims without anomalies, were the boys. They had no time for their bodies to react to stress and fear -or we can only pray they didn't- unlike their mother and grandparents, all for whom there exists a raft of both, all having an effect physiologically. There MAY have been almost an hour between the first deaths and the last. There exists unquestionable difference in ages, height, weight, health, etc, between the adults. All any of us can do, is "Just say....." -after all, we don't even know anything as basic as the sequence of deaths, do we?- but I doubt it will achieve anything concrete.
I'm not so much avoiding answering your questions, as feeling unable to address them without, as I see it, and bearing in mind our views are totally polarized, flying into realms of fantastic speculation. Who knows, Snow? It COULD turn out that you're right. Now wouldn't that be something?!!!!! I can't say you're totally wrong, because I don't know. I can only say, I don't think you're right.
-
Snow, I wonder how literally you're taking Dr Craig's assertion that "the victims died at the same time", and exactly how close a time-frame it was. It may well have been better, for the sake of clarification, had he inserted "roughly" into it, but then, what he said, wasn't for our benefit. Blood evidence suggests that it may not have been entirely as he said, given that Nevill seems to have escaped the bedroom and June appears to have crossed it before dying by the door. We do know the boys died in their beds. Other that that, it's speculation which gives rise to your many "just say's", and, indeed, ours.
To return to the discrepancy you claim of Sheila. The photos available to us are copies of copies. It might be said that they don't tell the entire truth, leaving us to see and believe what we're wanting to. It can probably be certain that the only victims without anomalies, were the boys. They had no time for their bodies to react to stress and fear -or we can only pray they didn't- unlike their mother and grandparents, all for whom there exists a raft of both, all having an effect physiologically. There MAY have been almost an hour between the first deaths and the last. There exists unquestionable difference in ages, height, weight, health, etc, between the adults. All any of us can do, is "Just say....." -after all, we don't even know anything as basic as the sequence of deaths, do we?- but I doubt it will achieve anything concrete.
I'm not so much avoiding answering your questions, as feeling unable to address them without, as I see it, and bearing in mind our views are totally polarized, flying into realms of fantastic speculation. Who knows, Snow? It COULD turn out that you're right. Now wouldn't that be something?!!!!! I can't say you're totally wrong, because I don't know. I can only say, I don't think you're right.
Hi Jane,hope your enjoying the Jubilee holiday.Now,the thing is,it dosen't matter what Dr Craig said regarding time of death.For a JB scenario,Sheila HAD to be dead by roughly 2.30,so it is a medical certainty that livor mortis was well established by the time the crime scene photos were taken.So all you need is the morgue photos for comparison.Simple as that.And we know that morgue photos still exist,because CAL had access to them.
-
The 5 people died within 10 minutes of each other. As stated in mine & CAL's Bamber scenario.
Dr Craig attended to certify death.
-
Hi Jane,hope your enjoying the Jubilee holiday.Now,the thing is,it dosen't matter what Dr Craig said regarding time of death.For a JB scenario,Sheila HAD to be dead by roughly 2.30,so it is a medical certainty that livor mortis was well established by the time the crime scene photos were taken.So all you need is the morgue photos for comparison.Simple as that.And we know that morgue photos still exist,because CAL had access to them.
C'mon, Snow! In previous posts you criticized Dr Craig for NOT stating TOD, now you're say it doesn't matter. You can't have it both ways. It that why you're inferring some jiggery-pokery goings on at the morgue, starting with the pathologist -in revenge for not being called to SOC, perhaps?- and ending with poor CAL, YEARS later, being persuaded to collude with his alleged findings in order to write her book. This sort of thing is just one of the reasons why I changed stance. All sorts of totally innocent and unwitting people were being accused of collaborations in a crime that some -many- had played no part in, and therefore had no agenda. It was beginning to look more and more like anything, however devious and underhand, could be used to get freedom for JB. That he'd been proven guilty became inconsequential.
-
C'mon, Snow! In previous posts you criticized Dr Craig for NOT stating TOD, now you're say it doesn't matter. You can't have it both ways. It that why you're inferring some jiggery-pokery goings on at the morgue, starting with the pathologist -in revenge for not being called to SOC, perhaps?- and ending with poor CAL, YEARS later, being persuaded to collude with his alleged findings in order to write her book. This sort of thing is just one of the reasons why I changed stance. All sorts of totally innocent and unwitting people were being accused of collaborations in a crime that some -many- had played no part in, and therefore had no agenda. It was beginning to look more and more like anything, however devious and underhand, could be used to get freedom for JB. That he'd been proven guilty became inconsequential.
Come to think of it, I've always been suspicious of the court usher at trial.
-
Come to think of it, I've always been suspicious of the court usher at trial.
Very naughty, Adam.................still, you may have a point :))
-
Very naughty, Adam.................still, you may have a point :))
I see a 'Court Usher' thread being created.
-
I see a 'Court Usher' thread being created.
I will leave that one in your more than capable hands, Adam!
-
Hello everyone,if you have read this topic and understood it,you will know it has nothing whatsoever to do with blaming anyone or going down the conspiracy route.It can be summed up in a few sentences.If Essex police have not yet handed over the morgue photos to JBs solicitors and the campaign team,please do so,if however the photos have already been handed over to JBs solicitor and campaign team,i suggest they get an expert to compare them with the crime scene photos for livor mortis staining.Thats all,no blame being pointed at anyone,and no one is being accused of conspiring to frame JB in any way.What do you say to that-Jane,Adam-when you have stopped giggling at my theories.
-
Hello everyone,if you have read this topic and understood it,you will know it has nothing whatsoever to do with blaming anyone or going down the conspiracy route.It can be summed up in a few sentences.If Essex police have not yet handed over the morgue photos to JBs solicitors and the campaign team,please do so,if however the photos have already been handed over to JBs solicitor and campaign team,i suggest they get an expert to compare them with the crime scene photos for livor mortis staining.Thats all,no blame being pointed at anyone,and no one is being accused of conspiring to frame JB in any way.What do you say to that-Jane,Adam-when you have stopped giggling at my theories.
Snow, you imply potential blame in the suggestion that Essex Police maybe deliberately withholding information which could lead to JB's release (there is also the question of whether JB's solicitor ascertained, from them, that ALL relevant documentation had been handed over) Blame is also implied where you suggest that previous experts may not have been quite competently expert enough, in discerning livor mortis, to find in JB's favour. I know from the days of my late partner being the chosen expert witness for his industry, that the views of expert witnesses vary. It seems to me that the more supporters dig to find stones to lift, and find there's nothing under them, the clearer it seems that JB is where he belongs.
-
Snow, you imply potential blame in the suggestion that Essex Police maybe deliberately withholding information which could lead to JB's release (there is also the question of whether JB's solicitor ascertained, from them, that ALL relevant documentation had been handed over) Blame is also implied where you suggest that previous experts may not have been quite competently expert enough, in discerning livor mortis, to find in JB's favour. I know from the days of my late partner being the chosen expert witness for his industry, that the views of expert witnesses vary. It seems to me that the more supporters dig to find stones to lift, and find there's nothing under them, the clearer it seems that JB is where he belongs.
Well,all that i am asking Jane,is that someone lifts the stone up that the morgue photos are under and take a peek,and if they prove nothing,then you can be even MORE sure that JB is where he belongs.
-
Well,all that i am asking Jane,is that someone lifts the stone up that the morgue photos are under and take a peek,and if they prove nothing,then you can be even MORE sure that JB is where he belongs.
Perhaps you could clarify which pictures you believe are being held. Photos don't seem to have been withheld from the defence, and they don't seem to have questioned their validity at the time. They had the advantage of seeing the originals, whilst we can only see pictures of pictures, which gives supporters carte blanche to make unsubstantiated claims, many of which seem to have become accepted as being true with only supposition to back them.
-
Perhaps you could clarify which pictures you believe are being held. Photos don't seem to have been withheld from the defence, and they don't seem to have questioned their validity at the time. They had the advantage of seeing the originals, whilst we can only see pictures of pictures, which gives supporters carte blanche to make unsubstantiated claims, many of which seem to have become accepted as being true with only supposition to back them.
Please read reply no78 above Jane.
-
There is a programme on channel 4 at the moment called 'corrupt cops,what the met knew'.You can watch it again on channel 4+1 at 8.30-9.00.
-
Hello three members and two guests.Not much going happening on the forum tonight,most members and guests are away to Jubilee street parties.Some of the members may return to the forum when they get home again,but they will full of drink and will just talk rubbish.They will use a lot of foul language and argue continually,so be prepared if you are easily offended.Anyway,the only Jubilee that i remember about was in 1977,i was ten years old at primary school.Every pupil got a brown mug and a coin,i cant remember what the coin was worth,i haven't looked at it for years.It was a great celebration all over the country that year,anyone around the age of 50 or older will have fond memories i would imagine.We had various events going on through the day at the local school and play park.Then in the evening there was a party/dance for all in the local pub,finally there was a bonfire and fireworks in a nearby field.It was a wonderful day.There isnt much going on here for this Jubilee though,the local pub is closed down and made into flats,and there is no street party,although there is a gathering in the play park on sunday.Oh well,without a Monarchy there would have been no Jubilee in 1977 and no fond memories.I think the UK would be that bit less interesting without the Queen.People argue that the monarchy costs the country a lot of money,but they bring in a fair bit of money to the country through tourism and the such.Oh well ,hope you're all enjoying the Queens Platinum Jubillee,no matter what you think of the monarchy.Bye for now my friends.
-
There is a programme on channel 4 at the moment called 'corrupt cops,what the met knew'.You can watch it again on channel 4+1 at 8.30-9.00.
Hi Snow, have you read professor Bernard Knight's statement? it's quite interesting in it he talks about the time between murder and the final suicide can be quite long etc.
-
Hi Snow, have you read professor Bernard Knight's statement? it's quite interesting in it he talks about the time between murder and the final suicide can be quite long etc.
Hi Rob,no i haven't,is in in the Archive statements?
-
Hi Rob,no i haven't,is in in the Archive statements?
Yes give it a read Snow it's interesting.
-
Will do Rob.
-
Hello three members and two guests.Not much going happening on the forum tonight,most members and guests are away to Jubilee street parties.Some of the members may return to the forum when they get home again,but they will full of drink and will just talk rubbish.They will use a lot of foul language and argue continually,so be prepared if you are easily offended.Anyway,the only Jubilee that i remember about was in 1977,i was ten years old at primary school.Every pupil got a brown mug and a coin,i cant remember what the coin was worth,i haven't looked at it for years.It was a great celebration all over the country that year,anyone around the age of 50 or older will have fond memories i would imagine.We had various events going on through the day at the local school and play park.Then in the evening there was a party/dance for all in the local pub,finally there was a bonfire and fireworks in a nearby field.It was a wonderful day.There isnt much going on here for this Jubilee though,the local pub is closed down and made into flats,and there is no street party,although there is a gathering in the play park on sunday.Oh well,without a Monarchy there would have been no Jubilee in 1977 and no fond memories.I think the UK would be that bit less interesting without the Queen.People argue that the monarchy costs the country a lot of money,but they bring in a fair bit of money to the country through tourism and the such.Oh well ,hope you're all enjoying the Queens Platinum Jubillee,no matter what you think of the monarchy.Bye for now my friends.
I recall street parties in Blackpool during the 1977 Jubilee. There were very few in my area. I think it would be a good time to retire now for the sake of her health and let Charles finally take over.
-
I recall street parties in Blackpool during the 1977 Jubilee. There were very few in my area. I think it would be a good time to retire now for the sake of her health and let Charles finally take over.
I don't think the Queen will ever retire as such Steve, although Charles is taking over more and more duties.
-
I don't think the Queen will ever retire as such Steve, although Charles is taking over more and more duties.
Is her unwillingness to step aside related to a mistrust in Charles' abilities? Or is she just trying to keep up a mostly held traditional of succession after death?
-
I recall street parties in Blackpool during the 1977 Jubilee. There were very few in my area. I think it would be a good time to retire now for the sake of her health and let Charles finally take over.
Hi Sreve,i would think now that she has reached this milestone,there must be a good chance of her stepping down,especially with her failing health.
-
Is her unwillingness to step aside related to a mistrust in Charles' abilities? Or is she just trying to keep up a mostly held traditional of succession after death?
I take your point about her possible mistrust of Charles, although latterly I believe it may have dissipated. I think her "unwillingness to step aside" has rather more to do with a devout and genuine faith. I doubt she's ever put a foot wrong regarding her position, but it would be puerile to assume that everything in her domestic garden was always rosy -one needs only look at the lives of her children- but it's never possible, regardless of wealth and position, to have everything.
-
Is her unwillingness to step aside related to a mistrust in Charles' abilities? Or is she just trying to keep up a mostly held traditional of succession after death?
I think it is just tradition Roch?
-
If she can't read her government's papers then it's time for her to step aside.
-
I remember when her father was king ;D listening to the poor chap struggling through his speeches.
The only time I've felt old was when the news recently showed pictures of the Queen as a young girl with her grandmother ( the old ) Queen Mary----who I also remembered ;D
-
I remember when her father was king ;D listening to the poor chap struggling through his speeches.
The only time I've felt old was when the news recently showed pictures of the Queen as a young girl with her grandmother ( the old ) Queen Mary----who I also remembered ;D
Hi Lookout,my mother says that she got a little box of chocolates at school for the Queens Coronation,does that ring any bells?
-
Hi Lookout,my mother says that she got a little box of chocolates at school for the Queens Coronation,does that ring any bells?
Don't remember the chocs, but I do remember seeing the Queen not too long after she'd been crowned. Then on another occasion when she alighted a train at Lime Street station, Liverpool. Also the Royal yacht when it was in the Mersey during her silver jubilee.
-
Hi Snow, have you read professor Bernard Knight's statement? it's quite interesting in it he talks about the time between murder and the final suicide can be quite long etc.
Hi Rob,i have read his statement,as you say,very interesting.I may give him a mention in a reply later on to Adam about his famous COA evidence.Nice day,the Queen could not have been luckier for her Jubilee.Maybe she gave a Royal command for the weather to be fine.
-
Hi Rob,i have read his statement,as you say,very interesting.I may give him a mention in a reply later on to Adam about his famous COA evidence.Nice day,the Queen could not have been luckier for her Jubilee.Maybe she gave a Royal command for the weather to be fine.
Hi Snow glad you found his statement interesting, have enjoyed watching the Jubilee.
-
Hi Snow glad you found his statement interesting, have enjoyed watching the Jubilee.
Yes its quite a spectacle Rob.
-
Hi Rob,i have read his statement,as you say,very interesting.I may give him a mention in a reply later on to Adam about his famous COA evidence.Nice day,the Queen could not have been luckier for her Jubilee.Maybe she gave a Royal command for the weather to be fine.
Yes and we all know what happened to King Canute when he tried that.
-
Yes and we all know what happened to King Canute when he tried that.
Yes---he who thought he could hold back the tide ;D
-
Yes and we all know what happened to King Canute when he tried that.
Hi Steve.You may have to refresh my memory,as you know i am not well read.
-
Hi Steve.You may have to refresh my memory,as you know i am not well read.
https://youtu.be/_31KKfCtIFI
-
https://youtu.be/_31KKfCtIFI
Maybe they should throw Putin into the Baltic.
-
https://youtu.be/_31KKfCtIFI
Thanks Steve.
-
Maybe they should throw Putin into the Baltic.
The Ganges would be a more swift ending---one mouthful of that water and it would be goodnight Vienna.
-
Don't remember the chocs, but I do remember seeing the Queen not too long after she'd been crowned. Then on another occasion when she alighted a train at Lime Street station, Liverpool. Also the Royal yacht when it was in the Mersey during her silver jubilee.
Hi Lookout.My mother has produced a gold painted coin pendant from the Queens Coronation,it says 'presented by the education authority' on the back.Any memories of that item?
-
Hi Lookout.My mother has produced a gold painted coin pendant from the Queens Coronation,it says 'presented by the education authority' on the back.Any memories of that item?
My only memory was of a coronation mug given to us at school.
-
My only memory was of a coronation mug given to us at school.
Well it must have been different in each region Lookout.There isnt much info on the web about the gifts school kids got for the Coronation.