Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on May 08, 2012, 04:59:PM
-
Àt 8.44am when the police surgeon Dr Craig pronounced Sheila Caffel as being dead in the main bedroom, he made a terrible mistake, because she was not dead at all by that stage, she was by all accounts still very much alive...
-
Àt 8.44am when the police surgeon Dr Craig pronounced Sheila Caffel as being dead in the main bedroom, he made a terrible mistake, because she was not dead at all by that stage, she was by all accounts still very much alive...
Mike
In this scenario and at this stage did Sheila have one or two gun shot wounds to the neck?
May I also ask in such an erroneous scenario how did Dr Craig pronounce Sheila dead was it by checking her pulse or by another method?
-
curiousessex,,,,,Sheila would have been pronounced dead via the classic indicators which is the permanent cessation of the
function of the heart and lungs,and in the overwhelming majority of cases,these remain the criteria by which a doctor diagnoses
and certifies death.
-
Àt 8.44am when the police surgeon Dr Craig pronounced Sheila Caffel as being dead in the main bedroom, he made a terrible mistake, because she was not dead at all by that stage, she was by all accounts still very much alive...
This is where I fall apart a little Mike. Did Craig examine Sheila on the bed, or on the floor?
If as has been suggested Sheila was spotted in the kitchen, and was presumed dead then made her way by some back staircase upstairs to her mothers bedroom did she lie on the bed.
As some copper seems to say that June, and sheila were both on the bed with the rifle between them, yet ended up on different sides of the room.
I admit that Junes position seems to have been placed there.
-
But Dr Craig pronounced her dead and reported at the inquest that she only had one bullet wound to her neck.
-
But Dr Craig pronounced her dead and reported at the inquest that she only had one bullet wound to her neck.
There were loads of mistakes Maggie, that is what makes this more compelling.
-
Àt 8.44am when the police surgeon Dr Craig pronounced Sheila Caffel as being dead in the main bedroom, he made a terrible mistake, because she was not dead at all by that stage, she was by all accounts still very much alive...
Sorry to be pedantic Mike but you need to be more accurate. "she was by all accounts still very much alive..."
This is factually incorrect.
-
Mike
In this scenario and at this stage did Sheila have one or two gun shot wounds to the neck?
May I also ask in such an erroneous scenario how did Dr Craig pronounce Sheila dead was it by checking her pulse or by another method?
by visual inspection...
-
Sorry to be pedantic Mike but you need to be more accurate. "she was by all accounts still very much alive..."
This is factually incorrect.
If there were any accounts that SC was still alive then JB walks free on this evidence alone. The fact is there doesn't seem to be any factual account that states SC was alive,when certified dead.
-
Is there a transcript of the evidence Craig gave at the inquest? Otherwise all we have is Craig's statement dated 07/08/85, in which he does not say that there was only wound, he just only describes one of them, just as he does with everyone else.
-
Is there a transcript of the evidence Craig gave at the inquest? Otherwise all we have is Craig's statement dated 07/08/85, in which he does not say that there was only wound, he just only describes one of them, just as he does with everyone else.
What he actually said was There was what appeared to be an entry wound to the throat
-
What he actually said was
But he also said that there was a quantity of "dried" blood which had apparently come from her mouth. Which may be of interest to those of us who say that the blood looks as if it was still wet?
-
Mike, Dr Craig describes only one entry wound on all the victims in his statement, but we know that is not correct. I noticed that a black line has been made through that statement. could it be that is was incorrect and he made another?
We know Sheila to have two wounds...:)
-
Mike, Dr Craig describes only one entry wound on all the victims in his statement, but we know that is not correct. I noticed that a black line has been made through that statement. could it be that is was incorrect and he made another?
We know Sheila to have two wounds...:)
I think that was what Bridget was getting at. It was a statement and he was just describing the scene as it appeared to him. He only mentioned one wound to Ralph yet we know there were many more injuries. I think the detailed analysis is left up to the pathologist. It was just Dr. Craig's job to certify death. and he does that through reading the life signs. He would probably feel for a pulse and not just rely on his sight?
-
Is there a transcript of the evidence Craig gave at the inquest? Otherwise all we have is Craig's statement dated 07/08/85, in which he does not say that there was only wound, he just only describes one of them, just as he does with everyone else.
Which demonstrates that he did not carry out a proper or thorough examination, to enable him to verify that Sheila or the others were in fact dead. It is also a striking feature that he pronounced all the victims as being dead at exactly the same time (8:44am) but this would have been impossible since bodies were all over the shop. When Craig was interviewed by COLP he gave a more detailed account about the occasion when he verified Sheila as being dead at 8:44am - he said that when he saw Sheila she had what appeared to be a solitary wound on her neck, and that by that stage he could only see one wound, or words to that effect. If there had been two wounds when Craig saw Sheila in the bedroom, he could not have been mistaken into saying he only thought she had one wound, unless of course she did?
Now...
Look at this image taken of Sheila by PC Bird at some time after 10am, on 7th August 1985, and ask yourselves how if Shelia had these two wounds to her throat when Craig pronounced Sheila as being dead, he could have been mistaken into thinking she only had one wound?
-
Which demonstrates that he did not carry out a proper or thorough examination, to enable him to verify that Sheila or the others were in fact dead. It is also a striking feature that he pronounced all the victims as being dead at exactly the same time (8:44am) but this would have been impossible since bodies were all over the shop. When Craig was interviewed by COLP he gave a more detailed account about the occasion when he verified Sheila as beimg dead at 8:44am - he said that when he saw Sheila she had what appeared to be a solitary wound on her neck, and that by that stage he could only see one wound, or words to that effect. If there had been two wounds when Craig saw Sheila in the bedroom, he could not have been mistaken into saying he only thought she had one wound, unless of course she did?
Now...
Look at this image taken of Sheila by PC Bird at some time after 10am, on 7th August 1985, and ask yourselves how if Shelia had these two wounds to her throat when Craig pronounced Sheila as being dead, he could have been mistaken into thinking she only had one wound?
And that blood definitely does look wet to me?
-
I cannot see how he could have been mistaken, Mike. There is no doubt about how many wounds you are looking at on Sheila's neck.
-
The photograph of Sheila on the bed shows her to only have a solitary wound on her neck, with a small vertical bloodstain beneath it. Now, either Craig saw Sheila's body before the said photograph was taken, or afterwards. Now, he claims he saw Sheila's body at 8:44am, and at that stage she only had a solitary wound to the neck, and that blood which had dried ran from the corners of her mouth? Well, this is nonsense if you go by the condition of the blood in the photograph taken by PC Bird at and after 10am, because by that stage Sheila has two wounds to her neck, and the only blood running from the sides of her mouth are clearly wet looking, and some one hour and fifth-teen minutes had elapsed between the occasion Craig claims he saw Sheila's body, and the occasion when Bird took pictures?
-
by visual inspection...
Mike
A Doctor pronouncing someone dead by visual inspection is totally at odds with your opening post.........
Àt 8.44am when the police surgeon Dr Craig pronounced Sheila Caffel as being dead in the main bedroom, he made a terrible mistake, because she was not dead at all by that stage, she was by all accounts still very much alive...
Given you have stated at 8.44 a.m. Sheila was very much alive............ when did Sheila pass away in your opinion.
-
The photograph of Sheila on the bed shows her to only have a solitary wound on her neck, with a small vertical bloodstain beneath it. Now, either Craig saw Sheila's body before the said photograph was taken, or afterwards. Now, he claims he saw Sheila's body at 8:44am, and at that stage she only had a solitary wound to the neck, an that blood which had dried ran from the corners iof her mouth? Well, this is nonsense if you go by the condition of the blood in the photograph taken by PC Bird at and after 10am, because by that stage Sheila has two wounds to her neck, and the only blood running from the sides of her mouth are clearly wet looking, and some one hour and fifth-teen minutes had elapsed between the occasion Craig claims he saw Sheila's body, and the occasion when Bird took pictures?
What time, in your opinion, was the alleged photograph of Sheila on the bed taken?
-
The photograph of Sheila on the bed shows her to only have a solitary wound on her neck, with a small vertical bloodstain beneath it. Now, either Craig saw Sheila's body before the said photograph was taken, or afterwards. Now, he claims he saw Sheila's body at 8:44am, and at that stage she only had a solitary wound to the neck, an that blood which had dried ran from the corners iof her mouth? Well, this is nonsense if you go by the condition of the blood in the photograph taken by PC Bird at and after 10am, because by that stage Sheila has two wounds to her neck, and the only blood running from the sides of her mouth are clearly wet looking, and some one hour and fifth-teen minutes had elapsed between the occasion Craig claims he saw Sheila's body, and the occasion when Bird took pictures?
I find it impossible to believe Mike that any doctor could mistake those two wounds for one wound. So it either was, as you say, only one wound or for some reason he has been lent on. What would be the purpose of pretending there was only one wounds instead of two. That makes no sense at all.
-
PC Bird took photographs in the main bedroom on two separate occasions.
My question is why?
My other questions surrounds the safety of the gun which was laid across Shelia....
Cook says he saw whoever make the gun safe. He says the gun was not made safe when he moved her hand and arm for PC Bird to photograph the marks on Sheila's night dress.
Which makes me want to ask....
Was her arm that flexible to have been moved due to rigour mortise?
-
The photograph of Sheila on the bed shows her to only have a solitary wound on her neck, with a small vertical bloodstain beneath it. Now, either Craig saw Sheila's body before the said photograph was taken, or afterwards. Now, he claims he saw Sheila's body at 8:44am, and at that stage she only had a solitary wound to the neck, an that blood which had dried ran from the corners iof her mouth? Well, this is nonsense if you go by the condition of the blood in the photograph taken by PC Bird at and after 10am, because by that stage Sheila has two wounds to her neck, and the only blood running from the sides of her mouth are clearly wet looking, and some one hour and fifth-teen minutes had elapsed between the occasion Craig claims he saw Sheila's body, and the occasion when Bird took pictures?
Quite clearly, Craig did not see Sheila's body (8:44am) as shown in the photograph taken by PC Bird at 10am, because if Sheila's body had been in that state by 10am, it could not have been exactly the same one hour and fifthteen minutes beforehand when Craig attended the scene, and pronounced Sheila as being dead. Blood running by that time, from the corners of her mouth at 8:44am, could not have been dried there or then, and yet be wet and running by 10am?
Another point mentioned is that Craig only mentions that all the other victims died from a solitary wound also, even though they had many more, but no body makes the link between Craig and PI "Bob" Miller, being present at the scene (8:44am) together when Craig verified death in the case of all victims, and that Miller attended the opening of the inquest on 14th August 1985, where Miller told Deputy Coroner that the police believed that Sheila killed the others and that she then took her own life by way of a solitary shot under the chin? Now, is it being argued that Miller misled the Deputy Coroner, Thompkins, into accepting that all the victims had only been shot once? And if so, or otherwise, how does this fit in with the relatives believing from a very early stage that everyone including Sheila had only been shot just the once?
-
Àt 8.44am when the police surgeon Dr Craig pronounced Sheila Caffel as being dead in the main bedroom, he made a terrible mistake, because she was not dead at all by that stage, she was by all accounts still very much alive...
What do you mean "by all accounts" Mike?
Not by any account I've ever read - other than yours, of course ::)
-
Quite clearly, Craig did not see Sheila's body (8:44am) as shown in the photograph taken by PC Bird at 10am, because if Sheila's body had been in that state by 10am, it could not have been exactly the same one hour and fifthteen minutes beforehand when Craig attended the scene, and pronounced Sheila as being dead. Blood running by that time, from the corners of her mouth at 8:44am, could not have been dried there or then, and yet be wet and running by 10am?
Another point mentioned is that Craig only mentions that all the other victims died from a solitary wound also, even though they had many more, but no body makes the link between Craig and PI "Bob" Miller, being present at the scene (8:44am) together when Craig verified death in the case of all victims, and that Miller attended the opening of the inquest on 14th August 1985, where Miller told Deputy Coroner that the police believed that Sheila killed the others and that she then took her own life by way of a solitary shot under the chin? Now, is it being argued that Miller misled the Deputy Coroner, Thompkins, into accepting that all the victims had only been shot once? And if so, or otherwise, how does this fit in with the relatives believing from a very early stage that everyone including Sheila had only been shot just the once?
None of the victims had only one wound, so what was going on with the police surgeon Craig, and police inspector Miller, and the relatives, all thinking or mentioning that the victims had all been shot just the once, when clearly they had been shot many more times than this?
-
Mike
A Doctor pronouncing someone dead by visual inspection is totally at odds with your opening post.........
Àt 8.44am when the police surgeon Dr Craig pronounced Sheila Caffel as being dead in the main bedroom, he made a terrible mistake, because she was not dead at all by that stage, she was by all accounts still very much alive...
Given you have stated at 8.44 a.m. Sheila was very much alive............ when did Sheila pass away in your opinion.
Perhaps what I should have done, is make the topic a sticky until I got over everything I wanted to say about this matter, but because I didn't I leave myself open to attack from many sides. Craig made a terrible mistake about pronouncing Sheila as being dead at 8:44am, because she did not receive the second shot until after the training exercise commenced at around 9am. Craig had pronounced Sheila dead (8:44am) before the arrival of the training officers, and before one of them accidentally shot Sheila whilst moving a rifle about on her body during the training exercise. This is what led to a delay in SOC taking control of the crime scene, until 10am. These training officers moved Sheila's body to the bedroom floor from the bed, where she had only one wound on her neck whilst body was on the bed, but she had two by the time she was moved onto the bedroom floor. By the time SOC took control of the scene, Sheila's body was in the position the training officers had left it in whilst carrying out training exercises with the bodies in situ...
-
What time, in your opinion, was the alleged photograph of Sheila on the bed taken?
Between 8:30 and 9:20am...
-
Perhaps what I should have done, is make the topic a sticky until I got over everything I wanted to say about this matter, but because I didn't I leave myself open to attack from many sides. Craig made a terrible mistake about pronouncing Sheila as being dead at 8:44am, because she did not receive the second shot until after the training exercise commenced at around 9am. Craig had pronounced Sheila dead (8:44am) before the arrival of the training officers, and before one of them accidentally shot Sheila whilst moving a rifle about on her body during the training exercise. This is what led to a delay in SOC taking control of the crime scene, until 10am. These training officers moved Sheila's body to the bedroom floor from the bed, where she had only one wound on her neck whilst body was on the bed, but she had two by the time she was moved onto the bedroom floor. By the time SOC took control of the scene, Sheila's body was in the position the training officers had left it in whilst carrying out training exercises with the bodies in situ...
I'm confused now Mike. I thought you said June shot Sheila?
-
What do you mean "by all accounts" Mike?
Not by any account I've ever read - other than yours, of course ::)
The evidential account I refer to, involves the images of Sheila on the bed with a solitary wound on her neck, and the other images of Sheila on the bedroom floor with two wounds and fresh blood running and leaking from the wounds, and corners of her mouth, etc...
Now...
in the first image I refer to, there was a small dried and fading blood trail which ran vertically, but no other bloodstains or wounds at all on her neck. What seems apparent to me is that because there was no blood at all running from the lower wound at the time Craig and Miller saw Sheila in the bedroom at 8:44am, Craig made the mistake of thinking that Sheila had in fact died, but she had not died at all by that stage. She did not die until after the second shot was inflicted, and because Sheila had been taking drugs the blood which poured out of the upper wound and the sides of her mouth appeared to be diluted (thinned). Nevertheless, what becomes clear is that Sheila's heart was still beating by the time the second shot was inflicted...
All Craig and Miller had to go on at 8:44am, was a solitary entry wound with a vertically dried, fading blood trail, on Sheila's neck, which caused Craig to make the terrible mistake of pronouncing Sheila as being dead, at 8:44am. However, if Craig had been present inside the bedroom when the second shot was accidentally fired or discharged, Craig would have then realized that Sheila's heart was still beating because blood was being pumped out of the body, in particular out of the second entry wound...
-
I'm confused now Mike. I thought you said June shot Sheila?
Don't confuse yourself, I think June attacked Ralph, and later fought with Sheila...
-
Mike you are suggesting that the gun went off while the room was full of officers. It is true the gun was not made safe and there could be a rare possibility, that the gun went off when they moved her hand and arm....But in all honesty I doubt it happened that way; because all the officers who were they would be lying. Not cricket, Mike :)
-
Sheila was shot for the second time during the training exercise, and this is what Essex police have successfully covered up for nigh on 27 years...
-
Mike you are suggesting that the gun went off while the room was full of officers. It is true the gun was not made safe and there could be a rare possibility, that the gun went off when they moved her hand and arm....But in all honesty I doubt it happened that way; because all the officers who were they would be lying. Not cricket, Mike :)
When was anything cricket Patti?
-
Mike you are suggesting that the gun went off while the room was full of officers. It is true the gun was not made safe and there could be a rare possibility, that the gun went off when they moved her hand and arm....But in all honesty I doubt it happened that way; because all the officers who were they would be lying. Not cricket, Mike :)
Unfortunately...
Photographs exist which lead to the inevitable conclusion that Sheila only had one wound when police first entered the premises, and that she was shot for a second time after the police surgeon, Craig pronounced her as being dead, at 8:44am - photographs were then taken at 10 am, showing that the second entry wound had been inflicted in the interim period...
-
Blood which ran from the second wound on Sheila's neck was thinned from use of drugs by Sheila in her everyday life...
Blood samples taken from Sheila's corpse were tested, and found to contain traces of all the drugs she had been taking before her dearth...
Non of the blood found in the silencer was contaminated with this type of blood?
-
This is all complete speculation. Not so long ago it was supposedly PC Woodcock who shot Sheila, 'Z' apparently told you so. Where are Dr Craig's COLP statements please?
-
Unfortunately...
Photographs exist which lead to the inevitable conclusion that Sheila only had one wound when police first entered the premises, and that she was shot for a second time after the police surgeon, Craig pronounced her as being dead, at 8:44am - photographs were then taken at 10 am, showing that the second entry wound had been inflicted in the interim period...
Mike I am going to chase you round the mulberry bush, if you don't expose those pictures... :o
-
Mike I am going to chase you round the mulberry bush, if you don't expose those pictures... :o
Im still trying to put together what on earth idiot sent a training team to a location where within a space of 12 hours or so 5 people lost their lives when i get past this hurdle the rest may make sense.
-
Im still trying to put together what on earth idiot sent a training team to a location where within a space of 12 hours or so 5 people lost their lives when i get past this hurdle the rest may make sense.
Hi Mertol :) What training team? Got to go might be back later, off to watch a bit of Dexter....:)
-
Mike I am going to chase you round the mulberry bush, if you don't expose those pictures... :o
If such pictures were exposable, Bamber would be out of prison and we would have feasted upon the scandal that ensued.
-
This is all complete speculation. Not so long ago it was supposedly PC Woodcock who shot Sheila, 'Z' apparently told you so. Where are Dr Craig's COLP statements please?
You must have missed his 'Z' P.S. hint a few weeks back.
-
I'm confident that the phot will eman nothing, even if released. I doubt that it would get much tabloid attention - they have given up on Bamber as public itnerest is low.
But I like to help people and have contacts at The Sun/Mirror/DM/Telegraph and will happily put you in touch with said contacts Mike if you ever want me to.
-
You must have missed his 'Z' P.S. hint a few weeks back.
Cryptic - what was the hint??
-
Im still trying to put together what on earth idiot sent a training team to a location where within a space of 12 hours or so 5 people lost their lives when i get past this hurdle the rest may make sense.
Yes,Mertol, who did such a thing and why. The event had happened. It wasn't even treated like a crime scene where there would be much to learn but as a suicide /murder it would be mainly clearing up I would imagine.
-
Cryptic - what was the hint??
The way I read it, was that he was inferring the informant had held held the rank of Police Sergeant.
-
The way I read it, was that he was inferring the informant had held the rank of Police Sergeant.
Thanks Rochford.
-
Whatever the rank, it was said that Woodcock shot Sheila. I would still like to see Dr Craig's statements to COLP if anyone could point me towards that, and also, I don't recall ever seeing evidence of this 'training' team. Where does that originate?
-
its online somwhere it was a free for all the front door was manned by a police officer and he was not writing down names going in but the back door officer was.
-
I have read that up to 60 officers went in to do a training exercise but I'm not sure if it was on here, the Bamber page or even wikipedia. It may be quite an old theory I think.
-
I have read that up to 60 officers went in to do a training exercise but I'm not sure if it was on here, the Bamber page or even wikipedia. It may be quite an old theory I think.
Yes, it has been referred to here and it is supported by evidence which came to light long after the trial. It was something concealed by Essex Police from everyone concerned.
-
Yes, it has been referred to here and it is supported by evidence which came to light long after the trial. It was something concealed by Essex Police from everyone concerned.
Is the evidence on here? I've often wondered where that came from.
-
Is the evidence on here? I've often wondered where that came from.
I will try and find it here. There is a long list of police officers who had to be eliminated for fingerprint purposes when the case became a 5 murder enquiry and belatedly the house was fingerprinted. It was revealed later that the scene had been used by the Firearms Support Group for "informatives", i.e. a training exercise.
-
I will try and find it here. There is a long list of police officers who had to be eliminated for fingerprint purposes when the case became a 5 murder enquiry and belatedly the house was fingerprinted. It was revealed later that the scene had been used by the Firearms Support Group for "informatives", i.e. a training exercise.
Ok, thanks, I do recall something about that but don't think I've ever seen the document that backs it up.
-
Whatever the rank, it was said that Woodcock shot Sheila. I would still like to see Dr Craig's statements to COLP if anyone could point me towards that, and also, I don't recall ever seeing evidence of this 'training' team. Where does that originate?
My point was that Woodcock was a Police Sergeant ;) There were others of that rank also mind.
-
My point was that Woodcock was a Police Sergeant ;) There were others of that rank also mind.
I'm clearly being thick... :)
-
The identities of the firearms team who took part in this training exercise is being avoided at all costs by Essex police, more so what they actually got up to. The training exercise they partook in resulted in a delay of the crime scene being handed over into the control of SOC - which did not officially take place until 10am, that same morning...
One of the problems associated with this training exercise and what the police got up to whilst it was being carried out, was that SOC recorded the scene as it fell to be photographed from 10am onwards, and treated it as though this was how the scene had originally been found by members of the raid team when they first entered the premises at about 7:30am. Yet, in actual fact the scene SOC recorded was the one left by members of the training exercise. There is / was no guarantee that what SOC photographed and recorded from 10am, was the same crime scene found by police when they first entered the building, but it seems more and more likely that what SOC recorded was how the scene was left by the as yet unidentified officers who took part in this training exercise with the bodies of the victims still in stitu...
-
The identities of the firearms team who took part in this training exercise is being avoided at all costs by Essex police, more so what they actually got up to. The training exercise they partook in resulted in a delay of the crime scene being handed over into the control of SOC - which did not officially take place until 10am, that same morning...
One of the problems associated with this training exercise and what the police got up to whilst it was being carried out, was that SOC recorded the scene as it fell to be photographed from 10am onwards, and treated it as though this was how the scene had originally been found by members of the raid team when they first entered the premises at about 7:30am. Yet, in actual fact the scene SOC recorded was the one left by members of the training exercise. There is / was no guarantee that what SOC photographed and recorded from 10am, was the same crime scene found by police when they first entered the building, but it seems more and more likely that what SOC recorded was how the scene was left by the as yet unidentified officers who took part in this training exercise with the bodies of the victims still in stitu...
The role played at the scene by these training officers, led to the stage managing of the crime scene, including the movement of victims bodies which were used as props whilst the training exercises were being conducted - as a result the court was deceived into thinking that SOC photographed the scene as originally found by members of the raid team which entered the farm house at about 7:30am, and the court was deceived into accepting that it was Jeremy who had shot Sheila and stage managed her body in the bedroom, when all along the shooting of Sheila and the stage managing of her body was orchestrated by police who took part in a training exercise with bodies of the victims still in situ...
Essex police should be compelled to identify the officers who took part in these training exercises and it should be spelled out what they got up to...
-
Yet to be fully explained by Essex police is what exactly happened inside whf between the finding of the last three bodies upstairs in the bedroom at 8:10am, and the time when SOC took control of the crime scene from 10am, onwards?
Why won't Essex police say what actually took place inside the premises during this one hour and fifty minute period? Polioce should be ciompelled to give a minute by minute account of what took place throughout this entire period, but they have been allowed to get away with having to explain anything which might shed some light on what took place and in particular how Sheila died in the bedroom long after police had got into the premises...
-
Which included one of the " officers " using Sheila for target practice.!
-
Mike,,,that's something you're never likely to find out. !
-
Yet to be fully explained by Essex police is what exactly happened inside whf between the finding of the last three bodies upstairs in the bedroom at 8:10am, and the time when SOC took control of the crime scene from 10am, onwards?
Why won't Essex police say what actually took place inside the premises during this one hour and fifty minute period? Polioce should be ciompelled to give a minute by minute account of what took place throughout this entire period, but they have been allowed to get away with having to explain anything which might shed some light on what took place and in particular how Sheila died in the bedroom long after police had got into the premises...
I will start the ball rolling by identify some of the key police officers who knew and were present at the scene when this training exercise got under way, a training exercise which lasted in excess of one hour between 9 and 10am, that morning:-
(1) - DCI George Harris
(2) - DCI Terry Gibbons
(3) - DCI Taff Jones
(4) - DCI Clarke
(5) - PI Bob Miller
(6) - Police surgeon, Dr Craig
(7) - Coroners officicer, PC Wright
(8) - PI Ivor Montgomery
(9) - PS Woodcock
(10) - DI Cook
(11) - PC Bird
(12) - DC Hammersley
(13) - DS Davidson
(14) - PC Clarke
All of the above, knew and know what really took place in side whf and how Sheila was shot for a second time accidentally during the aforementioned training exercise...
-
Yet to be fully explained by Essex police is what exactly happened inside whf between the finding of the last three bodies upstairs in the bedroom at 8:10am, and the time when SOC took control of the crime scene from 10am, onwards?
Why won't Essex police say what actually took place inside the premises during this one hour and fifty minute period? Polioce should be ciompelled to give a minute by minute account of what took place throughout this entire period, but they have been allowed to get away with having to explain anything which might shed some light on what took place and in particular how Sheila died in the bedroom long after police had got into the premises...
Isn't there an hour missing in at least one of the logs? Did the the CCRC manage to get hold of the original docs? It's a real shame if they have not and the docs have not been subjected to ESDA etc. The FSS have twice issued letter relating to the need for further tests. :-\
-
Mike,,,that's something you're never likely to find out. !
If your reference is to the fact that Sheila was shot for the second time by police during these training exercises, well I am afraid there is evidence of this in the photographs - Sheila was on the bed with one wound to her neck, and then later photographed on the bedroom floor with two wounds to her neck. The police are going to have to explain how the second shot was inflicted to Sheila's neck long after the police surgeon pronounced her as being dead with a solitary wound to her neck at 8:44am...
-
" Accidentally ",,Mike.? I'd say that Sheila would have been still fully aware,,,I won't say compus mentus because she wasn't,,,that having pointed that rifle at one of the officers,,,the second shot was " helped along " by way of a " self defence" action,,,if you get my drift. A sort of assisted suicide.?
-
If your reference is to the fact that Sheila was shot for the second time by police during these training exercises, well I am afraid there is evidence of this in the photographs - Sheila was on the bed with one wound to her neck, and then later photographed on the bedroom floor with two wounds to her neck. The police are going to have to explain how the second shot was inflicted to Sheila's neck long after the police surgeon pronounced her as being dead with a solitary wound to her neck at 8:44am...
Now...
before you all start getting carried away with yourselves let me point out that there is something very different about the lower entry wound, and the upper entry wound, apart from the fact that they were not inflicted together at round about ther same time? For example, there is freash diluted or thinned blood running out from the upper fatal entry wound, as opposed to what appears to be similar blood running from the lower non fatal entry wound, but there is a dried, faded vertical blood stain beneath the lower wound which is absent from the upper entry wound, which sets it apart form the other...
In addition...
blood which flowed from Sheila's left nostril, and stained various parts of her face, confirm that her head was lolled about this way and that, back and forth, at a time when she was not bleeding to any great extent from the upper entry wound site...
Collectively, all these features indicate that Sheila;'s body was moved, not only moved but moved in-between both shots having been fired which would be consistent with her body having been lifted and carried from the bed to the bedroom floor...
-
If your reference is to the fact that Sheila was shot for the second time by police during these training exercises, well I am afraid there is evidence of this in the photographs - Sheila was on the bed with one wound to her neck, and then later photographed on the bedroom floor with two wounds to her neck. The police are going to have to explain how the second shot was inflicted to Sheila's neck long after the police surgeon pronounced her as being dead with a solitary wound to her neck at 8:44am...
The other problem the police will have to face and deal with, is that nobody is supposed to have taken any pictures until after 10am, when PC Bird (SOC) started to take photographs in keeping with the contents of his forged photographic schedules, so does this mean that Sheila only had one wound to her neck by 10 O'clock, and that she was not shot for a second time until after SOC took control of the scene?
-
If your reference is to the fact that Sheila was shot for the second time by police during these training exercises, well I am afraid there is evidence of this in the photographs - Sheila was on the bed with one wound to her neck, and then later photographed on the bedroom floor with two wounds to her neck. The police are going to have to explain how the second shot was inflicted to Sheila's neck long after the police surgeon pronounced her as being dead with a solitary wound to her neck at 8:44am...
The police are never going to have to explain anything unless the photo comes to light.
-
Now...
before you all start getting carried away with yourselves let me point out that there is something very different about the lower entry wound, and the upper entry wound, apart from the fact that they were not inflicted together at round about ther same time? For example, there is freash diluted or thinned blood running out from the upper fatal entry wound, as opposed to what appears to be similar blood running from the lower non fatal entry wound, but there is a dried, faded vertical blood stain beneath the lower wound which is absent from the upper entry wound, which sets it apart form the other...
In addition...
blood which flowed from Sheila's left nostril, and stained various parts of her face, confirm that her head was lolled about this way and that, back and forth, at a time when she was not bleeding to any great extent from the upper entry wound site...
Collectively, all these features indicate that Sheila;'s body was moved, not only moved but moved in-between both shots having been fired which would be consistent with her body having been lifted and carried from the bed to the bedroom floor...
How do you explain Vanezis's pathology report in which he states that the wounds were inflicted within seconds of each other?
-
The police are never going to have to explain anything unless the photo comes to light.
Well, one things for sure, at some stage the photograph of Sheila on the bed with a solitary wound to her neck and the accompanying small dried blood trail beneath it, will appear and have to be dealt with. Then what are the police going to say?
-
Well, one things for sure, at some stage the photograph of Sheila on the bed with a solitary wound to her neck and the accompanying small dried blood trail beneath it, will appear and have to be dealt with. Then what are the police going to say?
I don't know, are you any nearer to getting the copies off of the hard drives yet?
-
How do you explain Vanezis's pathology report in which he states that the wounds were inflicted within seconds of each other?
The original Venezis autopsy file went missing, he removed a fragmented bullet from the left hand side of Sheila's neck, after X-rays had been taken to show that the bullet in question had become fragmented, yet by the time the matter came before the court at the time of Jeremy's trial, one of Venezis's exhibits, PV/20 which should have been part of a fragmented bullet, had become transformed onto a whole bullet, an exhibit bearing Venezis's identifying mark, and signature. In addition, another pathologist (Professor Knight) called by the defence during the trial at one stage told the court during testimony that there could have been as long as between half an hour to an hour between both shots having been fired. Both pathologists could not be right if what you say Venezis was saying, and in any event it was only his opinion, he couldn't prove the shots were fired close together, he was just speculating...
Have you or anybody else ever wondered why nobody has gone out of their way to try to explain the condition of the blood which was photographed to be running out from the entry wounds and the sides of the mouth? Here take another look:-
-
I don't know, are you any nearer to getting the copies off of the hard drives yet?
That matter is in hand and being dealt with...
-
Have you or anybody else ever wondered why nobody has gone out of their way to try to explain the condition of the blood which was photographed to be running out from the entry wounds and the sides of the mouth? Here take another look:-
If the pathologist had been shown this photograph of the condition of the blood which was photographed at 10am as flowing from the wounds and the sides of Sheila's mouth, he would almost certainly have been able to confirm that Sheila had only recently died, and that the reason why the condition of the blood was / is thinned as it is / was, was because she had been taking medication which served to thin out her blood. Now this is important for a number of reasons, but chiefly because none of the blood found inside the silencer was found to have any traces of drugs or any medication amongst it. Now, I don't want to entertain any suggestions that the lab' didn't test for the presence of drugs in the blood from the silencer, or that the lab' didn't know that Sheila had been taking drugs, because I do know that some of the blood which was taken from her body during autopsy was screened for the presence of drugs and that confirmation was obtained to this effect as a result of testing part of the same taken from her body...
The truth is, no drug presence was found in the blood from inside the silencer, and that to me is a significant feature which everyone has missed...
-
Well, one things for sure, at some stage the photograph of Sheila on the bed with a solitary wound to her neck and the accompanying small dried blood trail beneath it, will appear and have to be dealt with. Then what are the police going to say?
Mike i just don't understand this;
Well, one things for sure, at some stage the photograph of Sheila on the bed with a solitary wound to her neck and the accompanying small dried blood trail beneath it, will appear and have to be dealt with. Then what are the police going to say?
From this I can only assume the Photo of SC on the bed is the key to unlocking a section of the prosecutions case against JB
Do you agree?
-
The original Venezis autopsy file went missing, he removed a fragmented bullet from the left hand side of Sheila's neck, after X-rays had been taken to show that the bullet in question had become fragmented, yet by the time the matter came before the court at the time of Jeremy's trial, one of Venezis's exhibits, PV/20 which should have been part of a fragmented bullet, had become transformed onto a whole bullet, an exhibit bearing Venezis's identifying mark, and signature. In addition, another pathologist (Professor Knight) called by the defence during the trial at one stage told the court during testimony that there could have been as long as between half an hour to an hour between both shots having been fired. Both pathologists could not be right if what you say Venezis was saying, and in any event it was only his opinion, he couldn't prove the shots were fired close together, he was just speculating...
Have you or anybody else ever wondered why nobody has gone out of their way to try to explain the condition of the blood which was photographed to be running out from the entry wounds and the sides of the mouth? Here take another look:-
Is there a copy of prof Knight's report available? I don't recall seeing that.
Re the blood, what you see as wet blood, i see as a sheen on dry or drying blood, but you and I are looking at photos, so can't really draw a conclusion either way.
-
If the pathologist had been shown this photograph of the condition of the blood which was photographed at 10am as flowing from the wounds and the sides of Sheila's mouth, he would almost certainly have been able to confirm that Sheila had only recently died, and that the reason why the condition of the blood was / is thinned as it is / was, was because she had been taking medication which served to thin out her blood. Now this is important for a number of reasons, but chiefly because none of the blood found inside the silencer was found to have any traces of drugs or any medication amongst it. Now, I don't want to entertain any suggestions that the lab' didn't test for the presence of drugs in the blood from the silencer, or that the lab' didn't know that Sheila had been taking drugs, because I do know that some of the blood which was taken from her body during autopsy was screened for the presence of drugs and that confirmation was obtained to this effect as a result of testing part of the same taken from her body...
The truth is, no drug presence was found in the blood from inside the silencer, and that to me is a significant feature which everyone has missed...
There is no evidence that the blood from the silencer was tested for drugs though is there?
What drug thins the blood, haliperidol?
-
Is there a copy of prof Knight's report available? I don't recall seeing that.
Re the blood, what you see as wet blood, i see as a sheen on dry or drying blood, but you and I are looking at photos, so can't really draw a conclusion either way.
Well, with respect, you should consider going to spec savers because the blood in question has not coagulated at all...
-
Well, with respect, you should consider going to spec savers because the blood in question has not coagulated at all...
Thank you for your respect, I equally respectfully disagree with you. :)
-
Thank you for your respect, I equally respectfully disagree with you. :)
Yeah, but I have already been to spec savers...
-
Well, with respect, you should consider going to spec savers because the blood in question has not coagulated at all...
I think specsavers would be a great idea ;D ;D :D
-
I think there is one local to you Bridget
-
Yeah, but I have already been to spec savers...
Did you get your money back?
-
Funnily enough, it is also very odd that the blood which appears to be running freely from the entry wound, uncoagulated, does not behave in the same way as the blood which ran and leaked from Sheila's left nostril, and beneath the lower entry wound? How could blood flow in all these different directions at different sites on her neck and face, yet collectively they do not correlate or correspond to or with one another? Perhaps spec savers gave me a dud pair when I visited them, either that or the pair they sold me enabled me to see the light so to speak...
-
There's nothing wrong with Mikes eyes
-
Seriously, do you have a copy of Knight's report Mike, is it on the forum?
-
Irrespective of whether or not anyone is wearing specs that they got from spec savers, imagine for one moment if you had seen a photograph of Sheila on the bed, with only one entry wound, and a small trail of dried blood beneath it which trailed away vertically, what would you think of the suggestion made by police that when the firearms team got into the bedroom they found Sheila with two wounds on her neck and the gun which fired the bullets upon her body? I apologise for the edited condition of the following photograph, but this should give you some idea of what the solitary wound on Sheila's neck looks like in the photograph of Sheila on the bed, before she was shot for the second time and her body moved to the floor by police, to allow PC Bird to come along later and photograph Sheila's body on the bedroom floor with two entry wounds, and blood pouring and leaking and running from the corners of her mouth, and left nostril, and everything else?
-
Seriously, do you have a copy of Knight's report Mike, is it on the forum?
Yes, I have an extract of professor Knights testimony from during the trial, and I believe that somewhere amongst the 50,000 odd documents in my possession I have a copy of his report as well - I can't say for certain because I have not yet read all the material in my possession. I will certainly try to lay my hands on the court transcript extract I have just referred to, and post it...
-
Thank you.
-
PI Bob Miller told Deputy Coroner, Mr Thompkin, at the opening of the inquest on 14th August 1985, that police believed that Sheila killed the others and that she then took her own life by way of a solitary shot to the neck. Miller was there when the police surgeon pronounced Sheila as being dead at 8:44am, and would have seen the only wound upon her neck at that time / stage (as above)...
-
PI Bob Miller told Deputy Coroner, Mr Thompkin, at the opening of the inquest on 14th August 1985, that police believed that Sheila killed the others and that she then took her own life by way of a solitary shot to the neck. Miller was there when the police surgeon pronounced Sheila as being dead at 8:44am, and would have seen the only wound upon her neck at that time / stage (as above)...
You once posted a still from a crime scene video in which the blood trails looked totally different. Can you repost it if you have time? Do you have more and how, chronologically, does it and the blood tie in with this theory?
-
Mike i just don't understand this;
Well, one things for sure, at some stage the photograph of Sheila on the bed with a solitary wound to her neck and the accompanying small dried blood trail beneath it, will appear and have to be dealt with. Then what are the police going to say?
From this I can only assume the Photo of SC on the bed is the key to unlocking a section of the prosecutions case against JB
Do you agree?
I'll assume from the value you you put on this photo, you do agree.
You should know my views on assumption but there you go....
THe way I see it is the photo is a cornerstone to disproving the police evidence that SC wasn't moved.
So assuming the photo, in fact exists, what impact would this have on defence representations, past,present and future? NGB??
-
You once posted a still from a crime scene video in which the blood trails looked totally different. Can you repost it if you have time? Do you have more and how, chronologically, does it and the blood tie in with this theory?
Yes, here are the relevant images:-
-
I'll assume from the value you you put on this photo, you do agree.
You should know my views on assumption but there you go....
THe way I see it is the photo is a cornerstone to disproving the police evidence that SC wasn't moved.
So assuming the photo, in fact exists, what impact would this have on defence representations, past,present and future? NGB??
Depending upon exactly what is depicted in the photograph it would almost certainly be new evidence which would form the basis for a new ground of appeal. If it shows a single wound in circumstances where the second wound should be visible it would be sufficient in itself to win an appeal.
-
There's something very wrong with that lower wound. The seconds apart theory doesn't work for me. Wasn't it also suggested once, that the lower wound was a post mortem (accidental) wound? Mike, what did you think of the suggestion re applying numbered links for crime scene photos, thereby placing the onus on to the viewer, whether or not to view the image?
-
Hi there. I was looking at the lower wound the blood flow appears to be broken and slightly vertical. Could this be because she had brought her arm up to her first wound? The flow on her arms go vertical and there is blood leading up to her thumb. :)
-
Depending upon exactly what is depicted in the photograph it would almost certainly be new evidence which would form the basis for a new ground of appeal. If it shows a single wound in circumstances where the second wound should be visible it would be sufficient in itself to win an appeal.
So,the photo as described by MT would probably free JB. Mike's witheld it for 8 years according to himself. I shouldn't think EP or CCRC are to concerned about the Bamber appeals if his long standing (ex?) supporter holds the key evidence in his possesion...
-
So,the photo as described by MT would probably free JB. Mike's witheld it for 8 years according to himself. I shouldn't think EP or CCRC are to concerned about the Bamber appeals if his long standing (ex?) supporter holds the key evidence in his possesion...
I completely agree with this. We should all take a moment to reflect, understand that the forum owner has the evidence that is needed and encourage him to bring the evidence forward. Perhaps we should all offer to stop posting to allow Mike the time he needs to bring the evidence forward by the end of the week. Perhaps the forum is a distraction which is stopping what is, it seems, the most important piece of evidence being used in the right way.
-
I completely agree with this. We should all take a moment to reflect, understand that the forum owner has the evidence that is needed and encourage him to bring the evidence forward. Perhaps we should all offer to stop posting to allow Mike the time he needs to bring the evidence forward by the end of the week. Perhaps the forum is a distraction which is stopping what is, it seems, the most important piece of evidence being used in the right way.
AGREED. LAST POST TILL MONDAY. XX
-
I completely agree with this. We should all take a moment to reflect, understand that the forum owner has the evidence that is needed and encourage him to bring the evidence forward. Perhaps we should all offer to stop posting to allow Mike the time he needs to bring the evidence forward by the end of the week. Perhaps the forum is a distraction which is stopping what is, it seems, the most important piece of evidence being used in the right way.
Fare thee well...
-
AGREED. LAST POST TILL MONDAY. XX
Fare thee well...
-
Poppy wolly doodle?
-
Yes, here are the relevant images:-
Looking at the image of June it is clear that at some stage her head was laid back in a upward position.
I say this because the blood has run to the right of her face, yet her head is tilted to the left.
Is it possible that June was also moved.
I feel so sorry for june, and the manner in which she died, she must of been terrified poor woman.
-
Buddy, I feel for June too, she died an horrific death, so did they all. Which picture are you looking at? :)
-
Does it not strike anybody as strange that in the still the blood is completely different to the other photos? If these photos were taken around the same time why does there seem to be so much more blood around!
-
Fare thee well...
And there was me thinking you were ignoring me..... :D
It is worth retracting my abstinence now were on talking terms
Thanks Mike xx
-
Does it not strike anybody as strange that in the still the blood is completely different to the other photos? If these photos were taken around the same time why does there seem to be so much more blood around!
Do you mean photos of Sheila?
-
And there was me thinking you were ignoring me..... :D
It is worth retracting my abstinence now were on talking terms
Thanks Mike xx
Welcome back ye old friend...
-
There are several areas of directional bloodstaining which need to be explained:-
(1) - blood around lower entry wound
(2) - blood around Sheila's mouth
(3) - blood around he left nostril and into her left eye socket
(4) - blood around the upper entry wound
(5) - expiated blood on the front upper right hand side of nightdress
(6) - triangular bloodstain on upper right shoulder area
(7) - blood runs on Sheila's right arm
(8) - blood on top of Sheila's right hand
(9) - blood on hem of nightdress
(10) - bloodied fingermarks around upper entry wound
-
We can only think Mike, we need a medical person....but I will give my opinion.
1, runs two ways. 1st flow is downwards and watery. This could be because she has brought her arm up to her wound, hence the vertical trails of blood on her arms.
2, The bullet had fragmented into the throat, which may have brought blood up into to mouth, she must have fell back at this stage, she could have coughed and blood ran from both sides of her mouth.
3, this could be from a sudden jolt or her head may have been lifted.
4, This was a close contact wound, it runs to her right, which suggests she was on her right hand side when she received the shot.
5, This was due to her being on her right side and possibly from her first wound.
6, From her right side it has soaked through to her right shoulder.
7/8, This could be caused form her 1st wound has she brought her arm up to her neck.
9, No idea....She only had a small amount of blood in her uterus. But a very good one to debate on.
10, This was a close contact would, so the muzzle could have caused this....I doubt it was a finger mark...
Next lol :)
-
Do you mean photos of Sheila?
Yes, Mike once posted a photo of Sheila he said was a still from a crime scene video. I asked him to repost it and he did on the previous page of this thread along with the photo and edited photo of the gun shot wounds, I just find it strange that in the still there seems to be a greater mass of blood around the wounds. Unfortunately I also once asked him if he had ever watched the video or if he had it but he didn't reply
-
Yes, Mike once posted a photo of Sheila he said was a still from a crime scene video. I asked him to repost it and he did on the previous page of this thread along with the photo and edited photo of the gun shot wounds, I just find it strange that in the still there seems to be a greater mass of blood around the wounds. Unfortunately I also once asked him if he had ever watched the video or if he had it but he didn't reply
Oh ok, yes - that still is a bit of a mystery. The consensus seems to be that it is Sheila, but the context of it is unknown. It was from a documentary in which actresses were also used.
-
Oh right, that is different to what I thought Mike told me, I was of the impressionis it was some form of police video but that does not mean I am disputing what either of you have said, I probably just misunderstood.
-
Oh right, that is different to what I thought Mike told me, I was of the impressionis it was some form of police video but that does not mean I am disputing what either of you have said, I probably just misunderstood.
It could be a police video, no one seems to know.