Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on January 08, 2012, 08:57:AM
-
Police did not only move Sheila's hand, to photograph marks on Nightdress...
Lets look at what else they moved by considering these two consecutively taken crime scene photographs:-
-
(1) position of arm was moved
(2) position of right hand and fingers were moved
(3) shape of bloodstain on the upper right part of the nightdress in altered
(4) hem of nightdress is altered
(5) bible
-
Police have only admitted to moving Sheila's right hand so that they could photograph the mark on the front right lower part of her nightdress, but they must have also moved her right arm, moved her nightdress and the rifle...
-
By moving her right hand to allow the police to photograph the marks on the front lower right of her nightdress, it would not have included having to move the position of the rifle, which in turn changed the position of the nightdress (in the region of the right shoulder, and at the hem), you only have to look at these two pictures to see that this was not just a case of the police moving the victims right hand to look at a mark on her nightdress beneath, the police moved many things, including the right hand, the right arm, the nightdress (above and below) and the rifle...
-
Then of course...
there is no explanation at all, for how and why the barrel of the rifle became resting against the left hand side of Sheila's neck?
-
Somebody touched Sheila's throat with bloodied fingers, before she was shot with the fatal bullet under the chin, as evidenced by the fact that blood can be seen to be running and leaking and pouring from the entry wound, over the top of the bloodied fingermarks on her neck in that region of her throat...
-
Why would somebody have been touching that part of Sheila's neck/throat before she was shot fatally there under the chin?
-
If Sheila made those bloodied fingermarks why are her hands described as being "spotlessly clean" by the police?
-
Also the bedclothes were moved if you look. As if she was slid onto the floor over them thus causing the bloodstains on them.
-
Also the bedclothes were moved if you look. As if she was slid onto the floor over them thus causing the bloodstains on them.
No wonder police destroyed all the bloodstained blankets to get rid of all the evidence that Sheila had been on the bed...
-
If the police did move the gun (as they said they did) so they could photograph the bloodstain on Sheila's nightdress. Where then is that photo of the stain on her nightdress? Because both photos are virtually the same but that her hands have been moved a bit. Where is the missing photograph?
-
If the police did move the gun (as they said they did) so they could photograph the bloodstain on Sheila's nightdress. Where then is that photo of the stain on her nightdress? Because both photos are virtually the same but that her hands have been moved a bit. Where is the missing photograph?
I think they are referring to this:-
But I have got a problem with this, because if you look at the shape of the bloodstain on the upper part of the nightdress, in the second picture which shows the bloodied fingermarks on the front lower part of the nightdress, it doesn't match up with the black and white one...
Here take a look...
-
Look here:-
Bloodstain is more or less same shape in both pictures, but there is a view of the bloodied fingerprints in the first, but not in the second.
Which was taken first?
-
Now look at these:-
Bloodied fingermarks are visible in both pictures, but shape of bloodstain on nightdress is different?
-
We therefore have the two photographs on the same negative strip, showing Sheila's right arm and hand in different positions, and one picture not showing the bloodied fingermarks on the nightdress, whilst the other picture does, and the shape of the bloodstain on the upper right of the nightdress different in both photographs...
-
What does this tell us, in so far as the existence of the other photograph?
-
It tells us that there was another camera being used at the scene, with use of a different negative strip...
-
It tells us that there was another being used at the scene, with use of a different negative strip...
So why were police using two different cameras at the scene, involving different negative strips, to record Sheila's body with the gun upon it?
-
Mike,Looking at the finger "marks" at the wound site. It looks to me as though after shot the head "lolled forward and then the neck skin sealed the hole.that would give you that type of mark. The head moves back and the blood leaks from the open wound. ? what do you think ?
-
So why were police using two different at the scene, involving different negative strips, to record Sheila's body with the gun upon it?
There must have been two , and two negative strips, recording Sheila's body on the floor, and both of these negative strips need to be looked at very closely? I would be interested to know which negative strip each of the three pictures subject of this thread, were given? Which of these negative strips has got the missing 8 photographs on it, and which has not?
-
Plus,I would imagine that wound site,is the non fatal shot? am i correct?
-
Mike,Looking at the finger "marks" at the wound site. It looks to me as though after shot the head "lolled forward and then the neck skin sealed the hole.that would give you that type of mark. The head moves back and the blood leaks from the open wound. ? what do you think ?
I am with you...
-
So,non fatal wound,head lolls forward and seals wound,recovers consciousness and raises head ,leaks blood.
-
finds the rifle between herself and June,slips off the bed....Boom,fatal shot. Perhaps the police were already on scene,already had a quick look round,after all,head wound,she's dead,dont touch anything till SOCO get here ..... BANG.... oh shit.....
-
So,non fatal wound,head lolls forward and seals wound,recovers consciousness and raises head ,leaks blood.
Which leaks vertically, not horizontally, in my opinion...
ask yourself this question - why is there a dried trail of blood that seemingly runs vertically away from the lower entry wound, and a wet flow of blood which appears to run horizontally away from the same no entry wound?
To me, I don't think what appears to be wet blood blood running from the lower non fatal entry wound, is blood that originates from that wound, I think it is blood which got transferred from the upper fatal entry wound after the fatal shot got inflicted with the head lolling forward,than backwards, so that blood appears to run horizontally from both entry wounds?
-
I hope I have explained the point I have been trying tio make, basically, there appears to be two trails of blood leading away from the lower entry wound, one which runs vertically and which has dried, and the other horizontally which is wet looking...
-
I hope I have explained the point I have been trying tio make, basically, there appears to be two trails of blood leading away from the lower entry wound, one which runs vertically and which has dried, and the other horizontally which is wet looking...
Mike I can see where your coming from but is it proved that the wound you refer to is the non fatal shot?
-
Mike I can see where your coming from but is it proved that the wound you refer to is the non fatal shot?
Only by reference to the autopsy report, and evidence of the pathologist - references made by him about the bullet fragmenting and that Sheila would not have died instantaneously, but that she could have eventually bled to death...
-
Only by reference to the autopsy report, and evidence of the pathologist - references made by him about the bullet fragmenting and that Sheila would not have died instantaneously, but that she could have eventually bled to death...
So the wound close to the chin could be a non fatal?
-
So the wound close to the chin could be a non fatal?
Pathologist says death would have followed instantaneously once the wound under the chin was inflicted, but I suppose it could be possible that she might not have died as instantaneously, as he suggests?
So, in those circumstances, what would your point be?
-
So the wound close to the chin could be a non fatal?
Pathologist suggested the first shot to the neck would not have been immediately fatal, and Sheila could have walked around for a while.
The shot under the chin in his opinion would have been instantaneous death.
-
After slaughtering your family you would have thought JB would get this bit right. I remain unconvinced that JB was responsible.
IMO RWB framed him. The cuckoo who was about to inherit the family fortune and bugger off to New Zealand and leave the rest to stew in their own juices, after recalling in their debts.
I think this is so obvious. Cops given jobs, cops having a piss up with Ann, and her husband.
It stinks to high heaven
-
Pathologist suggested the first shot to the neck would not have been immediately fatal, and Sheila could have walked around for a while.
The shot under the chin in his opinion would have been instantaneous death.
that is what the pathologist said, but it does not mean that that is what happened or would have definitely occurred, although in this instance I accept what he says...
-
that is what the pathologist said, but it does not mean that that is what happened or would have definitely occurred, although in this instance I accept what he says...
I agree. The second shot directly and deeply penetrated Sheila's brain. There can be no argument about the result of that. The first shot would have resulted is considerable bleeding as the jugular vein was severed.
-
I agree. The second shot directly and deeply penetrated Sheila's brain. There can be no argument about the result of that. The first shot would have resulted is considerable bleeding as the jugular vein was severed.
I agree...
What I can't fathom out, is how the second shot could have been inflicted within a split second of the original, considering the angles at which the rifle must have been offered to the neck, to inflict the two wounds? First shot at a 45 degree angle, and the second shot with rifle flush with the body? I can't for the life of me understand how both shots were fired seconds after the other. In my opinion, everything points to some sort of a delay having occurred between both shots occurring...
-
I agree...
What I can't fathom out, is how the second shot could have been inflicted within a split second of the original, considering the angles at which the rifle must have been offered to the neck, to inflict the two wounds? First shot at a 45 degree angle, and the second shot with rifle flush with the body? I can't for the life of me understand how both shots were fired seconds after the other. In my opinion, everything points to some sort of a delay having occurred between both shots occurring...
I think that is very likely Mike.
-
Pathologist says death would have followed instantaneously once the wound under the chin was inflicted, but I suppose it could be possible that she might not have died as instantaneously, as he suggests?
So, in those circumstances, what would your point be?
The "chin" wound. In my scenario of SC recovering that would have to be the non fatal shot, thats why i queried the sequence fo the wounds.as it now seems, in my opinon the "finger"marks to me still look like where the neck has made a seal around the wound,and has been opened ? head moved,after the second,fatal shot.
-
I think that is very likely Mike.
The cover up started from a very early stage, involving the timing of the two shots, where the police were prepared to accept that the second shot occurred as a result of recoil. It was an explanation that was introduced, in my opinion, to cover for Sheila being shot for the second time, after the police surgeon confirmed Sheila to be dead, and his reference to there only being one wound on her throat at that stage (8:44am)...
I believe that the police know that Sheila shot and killed the others, and that they also know that Jeremy did not shoot dead his sister in the bedroom and stage manage her body on the floor to make it look like she had taken her own life. The police know that this is not true, because they originally found Sheila's body downstairs in the kitchen, and later it ended upstairs in the bedroom on the bed, and the police moved it onto the bedroom floor, themselves...
-
The "chin" wound. In my scenario of SC recovering that would have to be the non fatal shot, thats why i queried the sequence fo the wounds.as it now seems, in my opinon the "finger"marks to me still look like where the neck has made a seal around the wound,and has been opened ? head moved,after the second,fatal shot.
Could be, but if true, second shot occurred whilst Sheila was on floor, and gun was being replaced onto the body by the police in some sort of reconstruction involving a training exercise...
-
Although I am unconvinced that JB shot Sheila to make it make look like a suicide, I am equally unconvinced that Sheila needed two shots to exit the world.
Surely [don't call me shirley] she would reckonise the fact that a shot in the neck would not suffice her departure. Legging it up the stairs is a non runner for me.
I am still thinking of AP, and his involvment as his statements have a ring of untruths. I know you lot think I am obsessed with AP, but I still think I am on the right track, and sooner or later I will be proved right.
-
I hope I have explained the point I have been trying tio make, basically, there appears to be two trails of blood leading away from the lower entry wound, one which runs vertically and which has dried, and the other horizontally which is wet looking...
I see what your saying about the line of what looks like dried / flaked blood stain. this is from the non fatal wound and if SC was able to walk / stand i expect you would see these type of marks from the wound IMO
-
Although I am unconvinced that JB shot Sheila to make it make look like a suicide, I am equally unconvinced that Sheila needed two shots to exit the world.
Surely [don't call me shirley] she would reckonise the fact that a shot in the neck would not suffice her departure. Legging it up the stairs is a non runner for me.
I am still thinking of AP, and his involvment as his statements have a ring of untruths. I know you lot think I am obsessed with AP, but I still think I am on the right track, and sooner or later I will be proved right.
Cliff - I understand the point you are making, but do you not think that the first shot was likely to have been the result of Sheila getting the angle wrong? It is fairly tricky to get it right with a shot from underneath. That is why placing the barrel in the mouth is more commonly seen.
-
That is exacly my point Neil. She would have put the barrel in her gob, and not frigged around trying to find the sweet shot.
-
That is exacly my point Neil. She would have put the barrel in her gob, and not frigged around trying to find the sweet shot.
Yes I see what you are saying Cliff and you may be right.
-
Although I am unconvinced that JB shot Sheila to make it make look like a suicide, I am equally unconvinced that Sheila needed two shots to exit the world.
Surely [don't call me shirley] she would reckonise the fact that a shot in the neck would not suffice her departure. Legging it up the stairs is a non runner for me.
I am still thinking of AP, and his involvment as his statements have a ring of untruths. I know you lot think I am obsessed with AP, but I still think I am on the right track, and sooner or later I will be proved right.
I also tend to think the same as you buddy. AP knows something I'm sure of it?
-
That is exacly my point Neil. She would have put the barrel in her gob, and not frigged around trying to find the sweet shot.
With a handgun, mouth no doubt. A rifle would be more difficult,bending to the trigger wouldn't the jaw hamper you?
-
That is exacly my point Neil. She would have put the barrel in her gob, and not frigged around trying to find the sweet shot.
I wouldn't put a gun in me mouth. It might hurt if it went off?
-
With a handgun, mouth no doubt. A rifle would be more difficult,bending to the trigger wouldn't the jaw hamper you?
Yes, to an extent it would. I have experimented (obviously with an unloaded rifle!) and it is easier to position the barrel where the shot will be fatal if the barrel is positioned against the roof of the mouth. It helps to be sitting or even standing rather than lying down. It is more confortable placing the barrel under the chin, but more difficult to get the angle right so that the bullet will enter the brain. The third option with a rifle is of course to place the barrel against the forehead. Derek Bird committed suicide that way using his .22 rifle. It is more difficult than the other two methods and requires a longer reach.
-
Yes, to an extent it would. I have experimented (obviously with an unloaded rifle!) and it is easier to position the barrel where the shot will be fatal if the barrel is positioned against the roof of the mouth. It helps to be sitting or even standing rather than lying down. It is more confortable placing the barrel under the chin, but more difficult to get the angle right so that the bullet will enter the brain. The third option with a rifle is of course to place the barrel against the forehead. Derek Bird committed suicide that way using his .22 rifle. It is more difficult than the other two methods and requires a longer reach.
[/quote
Hence almost, the problem in a "clean" 1st. shot.
-
I am assuming that the TRAINING firearms team had weapons.
Would anyone happen to know if they were likely to have used blank bullets?
-
I am assuming that the TRAINING firearms team had weapons.
Would anyone happen to know if they were likely to have used blank bullets?
Actually I know someone who was shot with a black bullet.
-
Actually I know someone who was shot with a black bullet.
Black bullet, Grahame?
-
What on earth is going on with that bedding in those photos?
What a belting thread this is. Like the forum of old. I note a distinct lack of opinions from our opposition brethren on this thread also.
-
I note a distinct lack of opinions from our opposition brethren on this thread also.
Why does that bother you? ???
-
I am assuming that the TRAINING firearms team had weapons.
Would anyone happen to know if they were likely to have used blank bullets?
Nobody knows?Only,I found this interesting info;
Clarot et al (2003) reported a case of head injury caused by a tear-gas cartridge fired in a suicide.The weapon was 8mm blank firing pistol loaded with a cs 8mm cartridge.
The discharge of blank firing guns or tear gas cartridges produces a gas jet capable of causing pronounced close range contact wounds.
Some bullets are prone to fragment or splinter and will cause additional damage to the surrounding tissue.
-
everything about the pictures of Sheila are all wrong, that is not a place of death why is there no blood against the bedroom cabinet a clinical set of photos.
-
Black bullet, Grahame?
Sorry I meant blank. ::)
-
Why does that bother you? ???
It doesn't bother me in the slightest. I just think it's amusing when posters from either side deliberately avoid posting on something because they're probably on a hiding to nothing.
-
It doesn't bother me in the slightest. I just think it's amusing when posters from either side deliberately avoid posting on something because they're probably on a hiding to nothing.
I'm not avoiding anything, some allegations are so ridiculous and based on nothing, that there is no discussion to take place,no document to refer to, no argument to be had.
What I am finding slightly amusing, is that it appears to me that you have stopped discussing the case in favour of discussing forum members with opposing views. Perhaps amusing is the wrong word, but it seems that you were once reasonable and respectful, yet now you are not. It's the sort of thing other people come out with, not you.
If I am away from the forum, have not posted for a while or have not posted in a particular thread, please don't mould that into some sort of smug victory, when the reality is that I simply went out for dinner. ::)
I do have a great deal of respect for you Rochy, hence why I have shared with you what I have, but I must admit, all of this concentration on individuals or groups of individuals with opposing views, is out of character to that person who I garnered such respect for.
I don't get it. If you have a question to ask then fire away, if it is asked politely with a certain amount of respectfulness then you will get a reply accordingly, if it is not, then you may also get a reply accordingly. :P
-
Hartley you might be falling prey to becoming a bit sensitive.
You are a bit of a player in that you use certain repetitive 'tactics' at times, imo. :) Then you let fly and remonstrate, when those same tactics draw in a little heat from the posters on my side. It's also difficult not to address posts to you, when you are virtually the only 'opposition' on here.
If I had a question relating to this thread, it would be around the bedding. I find it very puzzling.
I hope nobody responds with 'camera angles'.
-
I'm not avoiding anything, some allegations are so ridiculous and based on nothing, that there is no discussion to take place,no document to refer to, no argument to be had.
What I am finding slightly amusing, is that it appears to me that you have stopped discussing the case in favour of discussing forum members with opposing views. Perhaps amusing is the wrong word, but it seems that you were once reasonable and respectful, yet now you are not. It's the sort of thing other people come out with, not you.
If I am away from the forum, have not posted for a while or have not posted in a particular thread, please don't mould that into some sort of smug victory, when the reality is that I simply went out for dinner. ::)
I do have a great deal of respect for you Rochy, hence why I have shared with you what I have, but I must admit, all of this concentration on individuals or groups of individuals with opposing views, is out of character to that person who I garnered such respect for.
I don't get it. If you have a question to ask then fire away, if it is asked politely with a certain amount of respectfulness then you will get a reply accordingly, if it is not, then you may also get a reply accordingly. :P
I must agree........such ill respect does not bode well for this forum. Attack the argument for sure...but keep away from personal comments. Please.....
-
In my opinion the killer had to have 2 shots as Sheila moved during the first shot, therefore it required a second shot to be sure she was dead - I just can't believe she shot herself in the kitchen and then went up to the bedroom (or that the Police moved her from the kitchen to the bedroom - why would they ?) for a second attempt to kill herself. She was killed in the bedroom, the body was staged managed by her killer to look like suicide and it almost worked.....
-
It doesn't bother me in the slightest. I just think it's amusing when posters from either side deliberately avoid posting on something because they're probably on a hiding to nothing.
Or they either can't be bothered, don't have the time or actually have something better to do!
Some posters have clearly got more time to post than others ::)
I am amazed at some of the thread headlines and content. The detail sometimes is so elaborate that no way can I follow it and 9 times out of 10 there is no supporting evidence - it's just theories (and there are some good ones), but some treat their theories like fact, and god forbid you challenge it (and I am a neutral).
Campaigning for anything so strongly can turn obsessional, and this can turn into a form a fanaticism IMO ;)
Having joined the Forum on 6 December 2010 I am now finding it is on a repeat cycle :P
-
::) Or they avoid it because they're on a hiding to nothing. And I did say posters from either side.
-
::) Or they avoid it because they're on a hiding to nothing. And I did say posters from either side.
as I just posted on another thread, unless you reign in the attack dogs, you will never get open debate from new members. The personal abuse is only for the thickest of skins....
Obviously I am not referring to you Roch as you've always treated me with respect.
-
::) Or they avoid it because they're on a hiding to nothing. And I did say posters from either side.
Cool - i just made my point and stuck it on yours. My comment was not meant to undermine or contradict yours!
-
as I just posted on another thread, unless you reign in the attack dogs, you will never get open debate from new members. The personal abuse is only for the thickest of skins....
Obviously I am not referring to you Roch as you've always treated me with respect.
I agree that we should all show respect for other forum members, whatever their viewpoint. As has been said many times before, attack the argument (vigorously if necessary) but not the person. From both viewpoints on this case we have been guilty of making personal attacks. It is probably inevitable that this will happen from time to time as the case understandably generates very strong feelings on both sides. I would like members to feel free to express their viewpoint without fear of being personally attacked. I do not believe that heavy moderation of the forum is the answer. I think self moderation is the best form of moderation, save in extreme circumstances.
-
Cool - i just made my point and stuck it on yours. My comment was not meant to undermine or contradict yours!
All valid points you made Nick.
-
Nick, no offence taken or meant. I was backing up your good point.
I have been told that Myself and Hartley are the only biased members of the forum..... That everyone else only seeks the truth.......Now that IS funny.........
-
as I just posted on another thread, unless you reign in the attack dogs, you will never get open debate from new members. The personal abuse is only for the thickest of skins....
Obviously I am not referring to you Roch as you've always treated me with respect.
Thanks. I don't mean to be disrespectful to Hartley. Like I say, at times it's difficult not to direct posts to him, since Hartley can be a lone voice on here. It probably comes down to a matter of wording. If I spot the 'tactics' I mentioned, I will politely ask about them.
-
Hartley you might be falling prey to becoming a bit sensitive.
You are a bit of a player in that you use certain repetitive 'tactics' at times, imo. :) Then you let fly and remonstrate, when those same tactics draw in a little heat from the posters on my side. It's also difficult not to address posts to you, when you are virtually the only 'opposition' on here.
If I had a question relating to this thread, it would be around the bedding. I find it very puzzling.
I hope nobody responds with 'camera angles'.
sorry for the late reply..... The bedding,are you reffering to the movement of the patterened throw from the foot of the bed?
-
NGB read your pm's please!
-
NGB read your pm's please!
Reply sent Andrea.