Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on August 02, 2012, 08:31:AM
-
There are some pepple who are trying to guggest that frash looking blood which was photograhed running away from entry wounds on Sheila's neck is not really fresh blood at all - but rather that someone has enhancrd the photograph go create an illusion that it was / is fresh blood?
Some people will stop at nothing rather than face up to the truth - I will say to all those who are engaged in such activity, just look at ghe CPR image of all that additional blood all over Shdila's face and throat, and then try to argue that all this additional amount of blood there was not fresh at some point after PC Bird started taking his pictures of Sheila at the scene?
-
How did the additional blood get onto Sheila's face and throat if she was dead and her heart had stopped beating?
-
There are some pepple who are trying to guggest that frash looking blood which was photograhed running away from entry wounds on Sheila's neck is not really fresh blood at all - but rather that someone has enhancrd the photograph go create an illusion that it was / is fresh blood?
Some people will stop at nothing rather than face up to the truth - I will say to all those who are engaged in such activity, just look at ghe CPR image of all that additional blood all over Shdila's face and throat, and then try to argue that all this additional amount of blood there was not fresh at some point after PC Bird started taking his pictures of Sheila at the scene?
What you refer to as 'the CPR image' is a still from a documentary. No one knows the origin of it, where it was taken, or even if it is in fact a picture of Sheila, although I admit it looks like her. It could just as easily be a picture taken after she was moved to the bed, perhaps to aid removal, or in the morgue. Blood trapped in Sheila's mouth and wounds has spilled / leaked when she was moved.
With regards the 'fresh blood' picture, again if Sheila was moved even if only slightly you would expect there to be some leakage from the wounds of blood which is trapped. The general colouring of that photo is so different from the others that it cannot be said that by comparison the blood is 'oxygenated', which is the point I was making on the other thread.
-
What was the delay between the taking of PC Birds first photographs of Sheila on the floor, and the time the CPR image was taken with all this additional blood present on her face and throat?
-
With regards the 'fresh blood' picture, again if Sheila was moved even if only slightly you would expect there to be some leakage from the wounds of blood which is trapped. The general colouring of that photo is so different from the others that it cannot be said that by comparison the blood is 'oxygenated', which is the point I was making on the other thread.
When police moved Sheila's body from the bed to the floor, the leakage you talk about occurred from the corners of her mouth, her left nostril and from the upper entry wound in her neck...
-
When police moved Sheila's body from the bed to the floor, the leage you talk about occurred from the corners of her mouth, her left nostril and from the upper entry wound in her neck...
Obviously I disgree that she was ever moved from the bed to the floor, but yes, that might account for it.
-
One of those pics is June,not Sheila. June was the one who was covered in blood,,though I fail to understand why,if she was shot in her bed. Another misguided story.
-
Obviously I disgree that she was ever moved from the bed to the floor, but yes, that might account for it.
You have no evidence to support your theory that Sheila's body was never on the bed?
-
One of those pics is June,not Sheila. June was the one who was covered in blood,,though I fail to understand why,if she was shot in her bed. Another misguided story.
BOTH PHOTOGRAPHS POSTED are of Sheila
(speculate all you like)...
-
You have no evidence to suppott your theory that Sheila's body was never on the bed?
You say you have evidence to support your theory that she was but refuse to disclose it?
-
BOTH PHOTOGRAPHS POSTED are of Sheila
(speculate all you like)...
If that's the case, and it is from a crime scene video, then it's odd that you've previously claimed that crime scene videos have been secretly withheld, this is despite the fact that Vanezis is clearly of the opinion that no video with bodies in situ, exists.
My guess is that it's either a mock up for a documentary, or a screen shot from a youtube clip which has had several clicks of "one click photo fix' applied in an imaging programme, which has increased warm colours, changing pixelated skin tones to a reddy brown.
-
Sheila would definitely have been lifted onto the floor from her bed,,because if she was seen to be spluttering caused by blood going down her throat,,then the recovery position is carried out.
Anyone who is lying on their back,choking,,you turn them on their side. It the obvious thing to do.
Her spluttering would have caused further blood to cover her face while lying flat.
Doesn't this make sense to anyone at all.? If you saw someone choking,you'd automatically put them on their side.
The crux of this though,is the fact that Sheila was still alive.Nobody has the cough reflex if they're dead.
-
Sheila would definitely have been lifted onto the floor from her bed,,because if she was seen to be spluttering caused by blood going down her throat,,then the recovery position is carried out.
Anyone who is lying on their back,choking,,you turn them on their side. It the obvious thing to do.
Her spluttering would have caused further blood to cover her face while lying flat.
Doesn't this make sense to anyone at all.? If you saw someone choking,you'd automatically put them on their side.
The crux of this though,is the fact that Sheila was still alive.Nobody has the cough reflex if they're dead.
No one coughed.
-
No one coughed.
How do you know.?
-
How do you know.?
How do you know they did?
-
If that's the case, and it is from a crime scene video, then it's odd that you've previously claimed that crime scene videos have been secretly withheld, this is despite the fact that Vanezis is clearly of the opinion that no video with bodies in situ, exists.
You forgot to quote when I mentioned that the CCRC have the Video footage from the scene that they are refusing to let Jeremy see (so get your facts right when you start making things up)
-
You say you have evidence to support your theory that she was but refuse to disclose it?
At least I have evidence to support what I am saying, you don't - and whether I choose to introduce it, or disckose it is up to me but that is another matter entirely...
-
No one coughed.
How do you know that Bridget. Were you there? ;D
-
At least I have evidence to support what I am saying, you don't - and whether I chose to introduce it, or disckose it is up to me but that is another matter entirely...
Anyone can claim to have evidence of anything, but if you refuse to use it even to further your stated aim then people are going to question whether or not you do actually have it.
-
How do you know that Bridget. Were you there? ;D
No, but umpteen police officers and a police surgeon were ;)
-
You forgot to quote when I mentioned that the CCRC have the Video footage from the scene that they are refusing to let Jeremy see (so get your facts right when you start making things up)
But they gave it to the TV production company?
-
As to the photos, it doesn't take an expert to see that the colourisation (is that a word?) is different on what you are calling the congealed blood ones, and the oxygenated blood one. Certainly the oxygenated blood one that we have here appears to have been manipulated in some way, even the colours in the skin tone appear to be too red. The original unmanipulated photos were presumably used in whatever submissions were made, and the argument was rejected I believe.
Bridget, this is what you posted re the suggestion photos have been manipulated. What I'd like to know is:
(1) Are you suggesting Mike Tesko has manipulated photos for viewing on this forum?
Or
(2) Are you suggesting that the defence manipulated the photos which came to light in approx 2004?
Also
(3) Are you inferring that the photos which came to light in 2004 are no different (in real terms) from the photos which were used by the prosecution at trial, i.e. there are no differences in the nature of the content re the crime scene / blood?
-
Bridget, this is what you posted re the suggestion photos have been manipulated. What I'd like to know is:
(1) Are you suggesting Mike Tesko has manipulated photos for viewing on this forum?
Or
(2) Are you suggesting that the defence manipulated the photos which came to light in approx 2004?
Also
(3) Are you inferring that the photos which came to light in 2004 are no different (in real terms) from the photos which were used by the prosecution at trial, i.e. there are no differences in the nature of the content re the crime scene / blood?
1. No.
2. No.
3. Not really.
What I'm saying is that the copy of the photo we have here appears to be enhanced, probably because it's been pulled off of some newspaper's website and they have enhanced it to give it more effect. Similarly, the photos we have here of Sheila on the floor appear to be lacking in tone, probably because they are photos of photos. I did say that I assumed the actual photographs were used by the defence when making their submissions.
-
1. No.
2. No.
3. Not really.
What I'm saying is that the copy of the photo we have here appears to be enhanced, probably because it's been pulled off of some newspaper's website and they have enhanced it to give it more effect. Similarly, the photos we have here of Sheila on the floor appear to be lacking in tone, probably because they are photos of photos. I did say that I assumed the actual photographs were used by the defence when making their submissions.
Do you mean a newspaper enhanced this photograph, so that it appeared very different from the photographs depicting semi-congealed blood?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4329;image)
-
Gunshot wounds? :o
That photo has clearly been edited though, it's b+w for a start, the same photo in colour on this forum shows an area of dried cracked blood, which is being claimed as 'running'. Maybe run would be more accurate?
Ralphs blood was wet too.
-
By the time PC Bird got around to taking the photograph which shows fresh blood running, leaking and pouring from wounds and the corner of her mouth, the edges of the blood flow had just started to coagulate. By reference to this particular feature it can be worked out that about 15 minutes had elapsed since a policeman shot and killed Sheila...
-
Gunshot wounds? :o
Ralphs blood was wet too.
You do not know that all the wet blood in the kitchen originated solely from Ralph? You are speculating, no tests were carried out to determine whose blood was found in the kitchen - on the other hand, none of Ralphs blood was found anywhere at all in the main bedroom. All the blood identified in the bedroom produced AK 2-1 type blood which was unique to June Bamber...
-
Do you mean a newspaper enhanced this photograph, so that it appeared very different from the photographs depicting semi-congealed blood?
No, I mean what I said, which was: pulled off of some newspaper's website and they have enhanced it to give it more effect.
-
Gunshot wounds? :o
That photo has clearly been edited though, it's b+w for a start, the same photo in colour on this forum shows an area of dried cracked blood, which is being claimed as 'running'. Maybe run would be more accurate?
Ralphs blood was wet too.
I'm not sure what you mean by questioning gunshot wounds. But do you have a link to the photo in question here that you think differs from the newspaper photo. Maybe we can try and find what you mean.
Ralph's injuries and positioning were entirely different and involved severe trauma to the head / brain. We also have no time of death for Ralph. There is also the disputed possibility that he was knocked over by TFG.
-
No, I mean what I said, which was: pulled off of some newspaper's website and they have enhanced it to give it more effect.
Enhanced by the defence or by Mike Tesko? Enhanced on behalf of the defence or on behalf of Mike Tesko? Do you have any proof of enhancement to produce the effects you claim?
-
Enhanced by the defence or by Mike Tesko? Enhanced on behalf of the defence or on behalf of Mike Tesko? Do you have any proof of enhancement to produce the effects you claim?
No, enhanced by the paper which posted it on its website - am I speaking Chinese?
-
I'm not sure what you mean by questioning gunshot wounds. But do you have a link to the photo in question here that you think differs from the newspaper photo. Maybe we can try and find what you mean.
Ralph's injuries and positioning were entirely different and involved severe trauma to the head / brain. We also have no time of death for Ralph. There is also the disputed possibility that he was knocked over by TFG.
Just being daft that the note is pointing to one but is labelled as a plural. The photograph I mean is in the library archive, near where you got that one.
I don't think it's possible for us to tell from the photographs whether the blood is wet or not, I also don't believe that the likes of you and I are qualified to understand what it would actually indicate if her blood was wet.
If the implications match the allegations then I would be surprised, mainly because all of these images have been available from the outset, yet nobody has shown any concern, not the prosecution or the defence, even the defence instructed Prof Leon MacDonell.
I don't understand the arguments, first of all for saying her blood was wet and secondly by assuming a time of death on that basis alone.
Of course if you have already decided that Jeremy is innocent, then obviously Sheilas blood is still wet and obviously that means she was killed just before being photographed. :P
-
Just being daft that the note is pointing to one but is labelled as a plural. The photograph I mean is in the library archive, near where you got that one.
I don't think it's possible for us to tell from the photographs whether the blood is wet or not, I also don't believe that the likes of you and I are qualified to understand what it would actually indicate if her blood was wet.
If the implications match the allegations then I would be surprised, mainly because all of these images have been available from the outset, yet nobody has shown any concern, not the prosecution or the defence, even the defence instructed Prof Leon MacDonell.
I don't understand the arguments, first of all for saying her blood was wet and secondly by assuming a time of death on that basis alone.
Of course if you have already decided that Jeremy is innocent, then obviously Sheilas blood is still wet and obviously that means she was killed just before being photographed. :P
What a load of garbage....
Look at the following two crime scene images of SHEILA CAFFELL, one taken of Sheila on the bedroom floor after a policeman shot Sheila under the chin and killed her, and her body was stage managed on the bedroom floor, and the other after CPR had been performed upon Sheila' by two different police officers - how did the additional blood which appears upon Sheila's face and throat get there if it wasn't wet at sometime after PC Bird took his stage managed photographs of Sheila's body on the floor with two bullet entry wounds?
I am not aware that dry blood can smear and run and leak and pour all over her face and throat, unless you and those on your side of the fence who are even listening or considering the garbage you keep posting about there not being any wet blood?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4315;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4304;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4312;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4314;image)
"Don't Tell me blood on her throat is not wet"...
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=18724;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4318;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4992;image)
"So, tell me how all this additional smeared blood upon Sheila's face and throat got there during CPR if it was dried blood and never wet at any stage - take as much time as you like trying to put your spin on your lunatic suggestions"?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=10492;image)
-
Suggestions that this is not a crime scene image of Sheila, but rather a photograph of June Bamber is absolutely bonkers - I didn't know June had been shot in the throat?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=10492;image)
-
Thats a morgue photo and someone had the cheek to complain about Joan Alberts crime scene photo being posted yesterday. Hypocrites one and all.
-
Suggestions that this is not a crime scene image of Sheila, but rather a photograph of June Bamber is absolutely bonkers - I didn't know June had been shot in the throat?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=10492;image)
This is what the other side do when they are faced with having to concede that police stage managed Sheila's body by moving it from the bed, to the floor, by planting a rifle that was leaning against the bedroom window just before the raid team went in to the premises onto her body, by adjusting her nightdress, and by planting a bible next to her body - they make up all manner of excuses which amount to nothing...
Their excuses amount to nothing because the police have gone on record as saying they didn't move or touch anything until after PC Bird completed taking his crime scene pictures, yet the crime scene photographs posted on this forum prove the police have lied. The excuses being banded about by some on this forum for why the police did stage manage Sheila's body, are also blatant lies, and designed to lessen the seriousness of what the police did and have done...
It appears there are some amongst us who support the corrupt activities and actions of the investigating officers in this particular case. At least one of the relatives tampered with the most significant exhibits of all in the case (silencer /blood) and the relative in question thinks it was al-right to keep quiet about what he did, as though he did nothing wrong, and he has the cheek to to keep appearing on TV news and documentaries as though he is some sort of victim in this matter, when all along he knows that if he had told the court that tried this matter that he had tried to unscrew the silencers end cap off but failed because it was too tight, and that he had used a razor blade to physically remove a crucial flake of blood, which is suspected of being handed over to Essex police and deliberately planted inside the silencer so that when it was sent to the lab' it could be found there and used to wrongly suggest a silencer was fitted to the rifles barrel which fired the so called fatal bullet (PV/19) under the chin...
Still waiting for David Boutflour to go public and make an official statement about how he deliberately tampered with an interfered with the silencer / blood evidence in this case?
-
Sorry to say it mikey but your talkin through your arse mate. ;D
-
Sorry to say it mikey but your talkin through your arse mate. ;D
No, you are...
-
Suggestions that this is not a crime scene image of Sheila, but rather a photograph of June Bamber is absolutely bonkers - I didn't know June had been shot in the throat?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=10492;image)
Hi Mike,,the indication I got that it was June,,,was the nose. I was comparing the nostrils as being from an older person,,,compared with Sheilas' small nose,,that's all. I'll study it more closely. Of course the " giveaway " are the throat/neck wounds. ( I'm a bugger for detail ) )
-
No, enhanced by the paper which posted it on its website - am I speaking Chinese?
It's not that you're speaking chinese, it's that I'm trying to get to the bottom of what is being inferred. This seems to me to be the following:
Any photos that where originally withheld from the defence, which the defence then got hold of approx 19 years after the fact, and which the defence have argued show oxygenated blood, are in fact no different in content than the photos originally disclosed / used by the prosecution at trial. Furthermore, in order to sell newspapers / aid the defence stirring up shit, the newspaper have enhanced one of these photos?
Am I along the right lines?
-
That left arm must have been malleable enough at the time to have straightened it,as seen on other various pics. Otherwise,not so after a couple or so hours.
Surely body temperature was taken,,,warmth. Nobody has mentioned whether Sheila was still warm or not.
I'm not talking room temperature either.
-
Thats a morgue photo and someone had the cheek to complain about Joan Alberts crime scene photo being posted yesterday. Hypocrites one and all.
John, to be fairm, Joan Albert's crime scene photo was very clear, very graphic and had not been seen before on this forum. It was also posted without any warning. Now I admit that many members on here will have become desensitised to SC crime scene pics, which are also graphic.
-
Just being daft that the note is pointing to one but is labelled as a plural. The photograph I mean is in the library archive, near where you got that one.
I don't think it's possible for us to tell from the photographs whether the blood is wet or not, I also don't believe that the likes of you and I are qualified to understand what it would actually indicate if her blood was wet.
If the implications match the allegations then I would be surprised, mainly because all of these images have been available from the outset, yet nobody has shown any concern, not the prosecution or the defence, even the defence instructed Prof Leon MacDonell.
I don't understand the arguments, first of all for saying her blood was wet and secondly by assuming a time of death on that basis alone.
Of course if you have already decided that Jeremy is innocent, then obviously Sheilas blood is still wet and obviously that means she was killed just before being photographed. :P
How have all the images been available from the outset, if the defence only saw these photos in approx 2003/4? Come off it Hartley, stop being obtuse ;)
-
It's not that you're speaking chinese, it's that I'm trying to get to the bottom of what is being inferred. This seems to me to be the following:
Any photos that where originally withheld from the defence, which the defence then got hold of approx 19 years after the fact, and which the defence have argued show oxygenated blood, are in fact no different in content than the photos originally disclosed / used by the prosecution at trial. Furthermore, in order to sell newspapers / aid the defence stirring up shit, the newspaper have enhanced one of these photos?
Am I along the right lines?
What makes you think these photographs really were withheld? Does that mean the defence are saying that they never had access to photographs of Sheilas wounds? Like the considerable number of photographs examined by Prof Macdonell?
-
How have all the images been available from the outset, if the defence only saw these photos in approx 2003/4? Come off it Hartley, stop being obtuse ;)
It's a myth I'm afraid. Stop swallowing everything put in your glass.
-
Ignore my poor spelling of his name, but what did the Proff, examine in 1992 if the photographs weren't released for another 12 years?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,264.msg1955.html#msg1955
-
It's not that you're speaking chinese, it's that I'm trying to get to the bottom of what is being inferred. This seems to me to be the following:
Any photos that where originally withheld from the defence, which the defence then got hold of approx 19 years after the fact, and which the defence have argued show oxygenated blood, are in fact no different in content than the photos originally disclosed / used by the prosecution at trial. Furthermore, in order to sell newspapers / aid the defence stirring up shit, the newspaper have enhanced one of these photos?
Am I along the right lines?
That's pretty much it, but I'm not saying that the defence (or Mike) had anything to do with enhancing the photo, or that an enhanced photo was used by the defence. I'm just pointing out the fact that it's pointless us arguing about whether or not it shows oxygenated blood because we're not looking at the original, which I suspect will be a tad less red in hue.
-
While we're on this subject, what is the defence case with regards this 'oxygenated' photo? When do they say it was taken?
-
If we run with the line you're taking, the defence have entirely invented the dicovery of an entire batch of photos, that they had alread seen and already had access to but just decided to make a hoohar about in 2004. If you want to make that accusation on here, then that's up to you.
-
If we run with the line you're taking, the defence have entirely invented the dicovery of an entire batch of photos, that they had alread seen and already had access to but just decided to make a hoohar about in 2004. If you want to make that accusation on here, then that's up to you.
Rochy, seriously, as a moderator, do you not think it's a bit out of order to twist peoples words to make it sound as they are saying something they are not, or that they are making accusations when they are not?
You, or Mike, or the defence (I'm not exactly sure who) are suggesting that there are photographs which show Sheilas body with wet blood which were only released in 2004, are you suggesting that photographs of Sheilas wounds which were available before then showed dried blood?
I'm just trying to understand your argument, please stop making digs.
-
That's pretty much it, but I'm not saying that the defence (or Mike) had anything to do with enhancing the photo, or that an enhanced photo was used by the defence. I'm just pointing out the fact that it's pointless us arguing about whether or not it shows oxygenated blood because we're not looking at the original, which I suspect will be a tad less red in hue.
So you are arguing that no difference exists re content, between the two groups of photographs, and one batch has simply been seen many years later than the other batch. But Hartley is going a step further and arguing that there never were two batches and the batch that was allegedly only seen in 2003 / 2004 were always in the possession of the defence already.
Is that correct?
-
Rochy, seriously, as a moderator, do you not think it's a bit out of order to twist peoples words to make it sound as they are saying something they are not, or that they are making accusations when they are not?
You, or Mike, or the defence (I'm not exactly sure who) are suggesting that there are photographs which show Sheilas body with wet blood which were only released in 2004, are you suggesting that photographs of Sheilas wounds which were available before then showed dried blood?
I'm just trying to understand your argument, please stop making digs.
I'm not twisting your words, I'm genuinely trying to understand the points that you and Bridgit are either inferring or directly stating. This is how I'm picking up what you mean. Honest guv. I'll be back later, or I'll be in trouble with my colleagues.
-
I'm not twisting your words, I'm genuinely trying to understand the points that you and Bridgit are either inferring or directly stating. This is how I'm picking up what you mean. Honest guv. I'll be back later, or I'll be in trouble with my colleagues.
I don't believe you, but that doesn't matter, can you clarify your position please by answering my question?
My question was:
You, or Mike, or the defence (I'm not exactly sure who) are suggesting that there are photographs which show Sheilas body with wet blood which were only released in 2004, are you suggesting that photographs of Sheilas wounds which were available prior to 2004, only showed dried blood?
-
I'll just add links rather than splashing the photographs about unnecessarily, but do you think these two images are from different photographs? Or do you think it's two copies from the same photograph of differing quality, the redder one having been digitally enhanced?
Grainy photo:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4315;image
Cropped, digitally enhanced, rotated image either taken from the negative, or a higher resolution print of the same photo as that above:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=18724;image
That is my "opinion" Rochy, please note that this isn't an accusation against anybody, in case that is what you choose to infer.
-
So you are arguing that no difference exists re content, between the two groups of photographs, and one batch has simply been seen many years later than the other batch. But Hartley is going a step further and arguing that there never were two batches and the batch that was allegedly only seen in 2003 / 2004 were always in the possession of the defence already.
Is that correct?
I don't know who saw what and when but yes, unless it is being asserted that this newer photo was taken at a different time to the rest, why would the content be any different from the rest?
-
I'll just add links rather than splashing the photographs about unnecessarily, but do you think these two images are from different photographs? Or do you think it's two copies from the same photograph of differing quality, the redder one having been digitally enhanced?
Grainy photo:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4315;image
Cropped, digitally enhanced, rotated image either taken from the negative, or a higher resolution print of the same photo as that above:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=18724;image
That is my "opinion" Rochy, please note that this isn't an accusation against anybody, in case that is what you choose to infer.
In fact, I've just rotated, cropped and resized the images and placed them side by side and they are identical. It is 100% certain that they are the same image.
We can't attach images to the forum any more, but if anybody would like to see the images compared in this way then feel free to PM me and I'll send via email.
-
In fact, I've just rotated, cropped and resized the images and placed them side by side and they are identical. It is 100% certain that they are the same image.
We can't attach images to the forum any more, but if anybody would like to see the images compared in this way then feel free to PM me and I'll send via email.
I've just done the same thing. I'll see if I can post them.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/B7C5f.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/q8BSH.jpg)
-
Thank you Bridget. :)
-
I don't know who saw what and when but yes, unless it is being asserted that this newer photo was taken at a different time to the rest, why would the content be any different from the rest?
That is what has been asserted, as you put it.
-
That is what has been asserted, as you put it.
Well clearly it wasn't.
-
Well clearly it wasn't.
Come again? What wasn't?
-
(http://i.imgur.com/B7C5f.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/q8BSH.jpg)
Is the lower photo a Mike Tesko photo of a photo?
-
Come again? What wasn't?
The photo wasn't taken at a different time from the others.
-
Is the lower photo a Mike Tesko photo of a photo?
Yes.
-
The photo wasn't taken at a different time from the others.
You cannot know which photos were taken at a different time from which other photos, by comparing what might be a Mike Tesko photo of a photo, with a blow up of the same crime scene image from a source unknown. If the blow up is a lab blow-up commissioned by the defence then that's one thing, if it is somehow a digitally manipulated image of the photo of the photo, then that might be a different matter altogether.
I'm off out for a slurp.
-
You cannot know which photos were taken at a different time from which other photos, by comparing what might be a Mike Tesko photo of a photo, with a blow up of the same crime scene image from a source unknown. If the blow up is a lab blow-up commissioned by the defence then that's one thing, if it is somehow a digitally manipulated image of the photo of the photo, then that might be a different matter altogether.
I'm off out for a slurp.
Of course it's not a manipulated image of Mike's photo of a photo, it's a manipulated image of whatever the defence gave the press. It's not me that's saying the photos were taken at different times. The photo of a photo is one of a series available in Abs' photo thread. Cleaarly they were all taken at the same time as each other, and so was the 'redder' photo.
Enjoy your slurp.
-
You cannot know which photos were taken at a different time from which other photos, by comparing what might be a Mike Tesko photo of a photo, with a blow up of the same crime scene image from a source unknown. If the blow up is a lab blow-up commissioned by the defence then that's one thing, if it is somehow a digitally manipulated image of the photo of the photo, then that might be a different matter altogether.
I'm off out for a slurp.
Read the posts Rochy, we've just shown you which photograph was blown up and enhanced to produce the 'redder' image.
So yes, we can very clearly know that the images are taken at the same time, as they are in fact the same image.
This actually surprised me, but it has completely dispelled the myth that the 'redder' photographs were being withheld prior to 2004.
If you can't understand this or aren't willing to acknowledge this, then fine, but I'd say it strips you of the right to describe others as obtuse.
-
With regards the 'fresh blood' picture, again if Sheila was moved even if only slightly you would expect there to be some leakage from the wounds of blood which is trapped. The general colouring of that photo is so different from the others that it cannot be said that by comparison the blood is 'oxygenated', which is the point I was making on the other thread.
Neville, June and the twins would also have been moved no one mentioned or photographed wet blood on any of the others! The fact that it is also a contention, means that given the estimated time of death (were JB to have committed the crimes) it is VERY unusual for blood to still flow from wounds and for livor mortis not to be evident.
-
Neville, June and the twins would also have been moved no one mentioned or photographed wet blood on any of the others! The fact that it is also a contention, means that given the estimated time of death (were JB to have committed the crimes) it is VERY unusual for blood to still flow from wounds and for livor mortis not to be evident.
There was wet blood on Neville, from memory it was said to have soaked into his pyjama top during removal.
-
Neville, June and the twins would also have been moved no one mentioned or photographed wet blood on any of the others! The fact that it is also a contention, means that given the estimated time of death (were JB to have committed the crimes) it is VERY unusual for blood to still flow from wounds and for livor mortis not to be evident.
Hi Caroline. Considering the severity of the crime scene itself,,,there was never a mention of the times of deaths,,which I find difficult to reason with because it's a most important and vital part of any investigation.
-
Hi Caroline. Considering the severity of the crime scene itself,,,there was never a mention of the times of deaths,,which I find difficult to reason with because it's a most important and vital part of any investigation.
Totally agree!!
-
Neville, June and the twins would also have been moved no one mentioned or photographed wet blood on any of the others! The fact that it is also a contention, means that given the estimated time of death (were JB to have committed the crimes) it is VERY unusual for blood to still flow from wounds and for livor mortis not to be evident.
They probably didnt mention it because June, Nevil or the twins were not suspected of committing murder whereas Sheila initially was. That was the nature of the initial investigation I am afraid. It is not unusual for blood to flow from wounds, especially as severe as they were - to put it crudely, I I hope you forgive me for - they were full of holes and each body contains 9 pints of blood. Since blood wil find a natural path according to gravitational forces acting upon, they will bleed and bleed profusely. The blood that makes contact with the air will inevitably congeal until it is disturbed again. I have this on good authority from a haemotologist (blood specialist)at my local hospital whom I quizzed during a break in a squash game.
-
They probably didnt mention it because June, Nevil or the twins were not suspected of committing murder whereas Sheila initially was. That was the nature of the initial investigation I am afraid. It is not unusual for blood to flow from wounds, especially as severe as they were - to put it crudely, I I hope you forgive me for - they were full of holes and each body contains 9 pints of blood. Since blood wil find a natural path according to gravitational forces acting upon, they will bleed and bleed profusely. The blood that makes contact with the air will inevitably congeal until it is disturbed again. I have this on good authority from a haemotologist (blood specialist)at my local hospital whom I quizzed during a break in a squash game.
They weren't all full of holes! Sheila was shot twice and yet the others didn't have wounds 'flowing' blood! I also have it on good authority that given the length of time between when the shootings are supposed to have occurred and discovery of the bodies, that it is unusual for livor mortis not to be present and rigor mortis not to have started - even though a few feet away June Bamber's body had succumbed to rigor mortis. Sheila was lighter than June, they were in the same atmospheric conditions and yet, Sheila showed no sign of rigor!
-
Blood doesn't pump out of a dead person,,for obvious reasons.
-
Sheila would definitely have been lifted onto the floor from her bed,,because if she was seen to be spluttering caused by blood going down her throat,,then the recovery position is carried out.
Anyone who is lying on their back,choking,,you turn them on their side. It the obvious thing to do.
Her spluttering would have caused further blood to cover her face while lying flat.
Doesn't this make sense to anyone at all.? If you saw someone choking,you'd automatically put them on their side.
The crux of this though,is the fact that Sheila was still alive.Nobody has the cough reflex if they're dead.
;D
-
As yet i have no idea of the exact time the shootings started and i dont think anyone else does including the court at the trial of JB so all you can do is guess,for those who believe in JB guilty i will welcome the exact time the events occured.
-
Read the posts Rochy, we've just shown you which photograph was blown up and enhanced to produce the 'redder' image.
So yes, we can very clearly know that the images are taken at the same time, as they are in fact the same image.
This actually surprised me, but it has completely dispelled the myth that the 'redder' photographs were being withheld prior to 2004.
If you can't understand this or aren't willing to acknowledge this, then fine, but I'd say it strips you of the right to describe others as obtuse.
The photo which we are discussing. Is it your argument , that this photo was always available... or is it your argument that this photo was not previously available... only became available since 2004 and has been advanced / manipulated to support the defence?
-
Lets get things right in perspective - police developed the crime scene photographs and were able to manipulate what was actually shown in these photographs, by adjusting tone, contrast and whatever they felt was necessary to present their case favourably...
So...
Don't accuse the defence of manipulating the way photographs taken at the scene have been manipulated, the police are guilty of doing this / that themselves, and yet there are some who not only cannot see this, even if they realize this is what the police did, they will go on to say police did nothing wrong, of course not, yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir...
-
The problem is there is form in the way photos are presented.it wouldn't be the first time that a supposed ground breaking picture has been proved to be a blatant attempt at pulling the wool over forum members eyes, eh mike.....
-
They probably didnt mention it because June, Nevil or the twins were not suspected of committing murder whereas Sheila initially was. That was the nature of the initial investigation I am afraid. It is not unusual for blood to flow from wounds, especially as severe as they were - to put it crudely, I I hope you forgive me for - they were full of holes and each body contains 9 pints of blood. Since blood wil find a natural path according to gravitational forces acting upon, they will bleed and bleed profusely. The blood that makes contact with the air will inevitably congeal until it is disturbed again. I have this on good authority from a haemotologist (blood specialist)at my local hospital whom I quizzed during a break in a squash game.
Hi Moe
I have just done a quick google and the consensus is that in order to bleed the heart needs to pump the blood around the body.
If the heart has stopped then the blood finds gravity and fails to the bottom of the body, this is known as Liver Mortis. However in some cases and, depending on how long the body has been dead; if that body is moved or turned over blood can fall to the nearest exit point, ie the mouth or nose.
Normally when the heart stops beating, the blood will stop flowing and fall to gravity. I said that twice...lol :) :) :)
-
The problem is there is form in the way photos are presented.it wouldn't be the first time that a supposed ground breaking picture has been proved to be a blatant attempt at pulling the wool over forum members eyes, eh mike.....
You mean like when the police used such techniques to the prosecutions advantage during the trial and subsequent 2002 appeal?
-
There was wet blood on Neville, from memory it was said to have soaked into his pyjama top during removal.
Hi Bridget
There was wet blood on a bullet on the 11/09/95 according to Fletcher....4 weeks after the murders. Must have had a good fridge... :) :) :)
-
Blood doesn't pump out of a dead person,,for obvious reasons.
Hi Lookout, I think you are right there, especially after 4 to 5 hours later....or was it? Could it have been just prior to the raid team entering the building?
Also, Shelia had partially digested food...the others hadn't....Her lungs were congested, could this relate to CPR? See ?????v????? :) :) :) :)
-
The photo which we are discussing. Is it your argument , that this photo was always available... or is it your argument that this photo was not previously available... only became available since 2004 and has been advanced / manipulated to support the defence?
I think I've been quite clear, please refer to my earlier posts on the subject.
-
Hi Moe
I have just done a quick google and the consensus is that in order to bleed the heart needs to pump the blood around the body.
If the heart has stopped then the blood finds gravity and fails to the bottom of the body, this is known as Liver Mortis. However in some cases and, depending on how long the body has been dead; if that body is moved or turned over blood can fall to the nearest exit point, ie the mouth or nose.
Normally when the heart stops beating, the blood will stop flowing and fall to gravity. I said that twice...lol :) :) :)
Erm........That's exactly what I have just said.
-
Hi Moe
I have just done a quick google and the consensus is that in order to bleed the heart needs to pump the blood around the body.
If the heart has stopped then the blood finds gravity and fails to the bottom of the body, this is known as Liver Mortis. However in some cases and, depending on how long the body has been dead; if that body is moved or turned over blood can fall to the nearest exit point, ie the mouth or nose.
Normally when the heart stops beating, the blood will stop flowing and fall to gravity. I said that twice...lol :) :) :)
Hi Patti, long time no speak!. Nobody has yet mentioned that whilst both wounds are towards the left side of her neck, blood from these pooling in her left armpit, there is a much thinner trickle emitting from the left corner of her mouth than from the right corner, where it also runs back into her eye. How can this be explained?
-
I think I've been quite clear, please refer to my earlier posts on the subject.
I don't think you've been clear at all. Please dispense with the supercilious tone. You're not going to get a rise out of me by employing it.
-
Read the posts Rochy, we've just shown you which photograph was blown up and enhanced to produce the 'redder' image.
So yes, we can very clearly know that the images are taken at the same time, as they are in fact the same image.
This actually surprised me, but it has completely dispelled the myth that the 'redder' photographs were being withheld prior to 2004.
If you can't understand this or aren't willing to acknowledge this, then fine, but I'd say it strips you of the right to describe others as obtuse.
Please don't talk down to me. No myths have been dispelled. What has been compared is a possible photo of a photo with a possible lab blow up or enhanced image of the same crime scene, from another source, other than the photo of the photo (?).
-
Erm........That's exactly what I have just said.
How could / can blood run horizontally from the corners of Sheila's mouth and entry wound sites, if blood falls to the lowest part of the body after death, if police or anyone did not stage manage Sheila's body, and she died there on the bedroom floor, and nobody moved or put her body there, or stage managed it? By the same token, how did blood from the lower entry wound manage to run in a totally different direction if she was not stood upright at any stage, after the first shot was / had been inflicted?
I would suggest and I believe and know that after Sheila was shot for the first time she was stood upright and walked about, but that she was laid down when a policeman shot her with use of the WPC Jeapes rifle that had earlier been spotted resting against the bedroom window - now what I want to know is, how did the WPC Jeapes rifle get from the bedroom window onto Sheila's body after about 7:15am, and before 10am to enable PC Bird to photograph it there? If police found Sheila's body on the floor, and the rifle that fired the fatal bullet (PV/19) was resting against the bedroom window when police first entered the bedroom, how was /is it possible for police to conclude as they did do, that Sheila killed the others and that she had then taken her own life by shooting herself under the chin by way of a solitary shot? Even if she had two wounds by that stage (imaginary scenario) how could Sheila's body be found on the bedroom floor, and the rifle which fired both shots (imaginary scenario) be resting up against the bedroom window, and police conclude that she killed the others and then took her own life on the bedroom floor - how did the rifle which Jeapes saw get from the window onto Sheila's body by 10am that morning?
Why was there a lengthy delay before SOC were allowed to take crime scene photographs?
Did such a delay take place, or did the police just make out there was such a delay? In fact, were / are all the withheld (358) pictures which form part and parcel of the senior investigating officers (581) album, mainly photographs taken at the scene before 10am?
-
How could / can blood run horizontally from the corners of Sheila's mouth and entry wound sites, if blood falls to the lowest part of the body after death, if police or anyone did not stage manage Sheila's body, and she died there on the bedroom floor, and nobody moved or put her body there, or stage managed it? By the same token, how did blood from the lower entry wound manage to run in a totally different direction if she was not stood upright at any stage, after the first shot was / had been inflicted?
I would suggest and I believe and know that after Sheila was shot for the first time she was stood upright and walked about, but that she was laid down when a policeman shot her with use of the WPC Jeapes rifle that had earlier been spotted resting against the bedroom window - now what I want to know is, how did the WPC Jeapes rifle get from the bedroom window onto Sheila's body after about 7:15am, and before 10am to enable PC Bird to photograph it there? If police found Sheila's body on the floor, and the rifle that fired the fatal bullet (PV/19) was resting against the bedroom window when police first entered the bedroom, how was /is it possible for police to conclude as they did do, that Sheila killed the others and that she had then taken her own life by shooting herself under the chin by way of a solitary shot? Even if she had two wounds by that stage (imaginary scenario) how could Sheila's body be found on the bedroom floor, and the rifle which fired both shots (imaginary scenario) be resting up against the bedroom window, and police conclude that she killed the others and then took her own life on the bedroom floor - how did the rifle which Jeapes saw get from the window onto Sheila's body by 10am that morning?
Why was there a lengthy delay before SOC were allowed to take crime scene photographs?
Did such a delay take place, or did the police just make out there was such a delay? In fact, were / are all the withheld (358) pictures which form part and parcel of the senior investigating officers (581) album, mainly photographs taken at the scene before 10am?
If all, or any of this were / is true, how can the police or anyone start to blame Jeremy for being so clever that he fooled the police into doing what they did, and thinking what they did, when Jeremy was not there co-ordinating what the police did or did not do?
It's all bollocks...
-
Please don't talk down to me. No myths have been dispelled. What has been compared is a possible photo of a photo with a possible lab blow up or enhanced image of the same crime scene, from another source, other than the photo of the photo (?).
I think the point is Roch, that both the photo of the photo (from which H and I took the 'grey' blow up) and the 'red' blow up, come from the same original source. They are from the same negative, albeit they have undergone different treatments since the picture was taken. What I'm not clear on is when the pictures of Sheila on the floor which are in the photo thread came into the defence's possession. Certainly Prof. MacDonnell examined a number of crime scene photos including pictures of Sheila in 1992, and his description of them seems to suggest he was looking at the same photos as those we have in the photo thread (better copies though of course).
-
(http://i.imgur.com/B7C5f.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/q8BSH.jpg)
Simple explanation for difference in quality of images - lower one was taken at the offices of GDS in London in 2004, when I along with another visitor (L. Manley) were invited to view photographs contained in the senior investigating officers album, and we took a series of photographs of the photographs using our own cameras. Unfortunately, we (myself and Lee) took that many pictures the batteries in our cameras ran out and we therefore asked Michael De Stefano to photocopy more of the pictures. He started to do this but the colour cartridge in his copying machine eventually started to run out of ink, and hence the quality of the image was dramatically reduced - so no mystery there...
Whilst we were there photographing and having copies made of the photographs contained in the senior investigating officers album, GDS rang up his son (Michael) and asked how we had been getting on, and what we had discovered from examining the previously undisclosed photographs?
-
Simple explanation for difference in quality of images - lower one was taken at the offices of GDS in London in 2004, when I along with another visitor (L. Manley) were invited to view photographs contained in the senior investigating officers album, and we took a series of photographs of the photographs using our own cameras. Unfortunately, we (myself and Lee) took that many pictures the batteries in our cameras ran out and we therefore asked Michael De Stefano to photocopy more of the pictures. He started to do this but the colour cartridge in his copying machine eventually started to run out of ink, and hence the quality of the image was dramatically reduced - so no mystery there...
Whilst we were there photographing and having copies made of the photographs contained in the senior investigating officers album, GDS rang up his son (Michael) and asked how we had been getting on, and what we had discovered from examining the previously undisclosed photographs?
I would also like to add that because this particular image was one of the copies made by Michael de Stefano and the ink in his copying machine had started to run out, that my colleague retained these copies and posted them to me by email attachment a few days or weeks later ( so there is a record showing the corresponding email sent between us with this image in this condition sent by her to me on that occasion - so you could hardly call that us manipulating this particular photograph)?
-
I would also like to add that because this particular image was one of the copies made by Michael de Stefano and the ink in his copying machine had started to run out, that my colleague retained these copies and posted them to me by email attachment a few days or weeks later ( so there is a record showing the corresponding email sent between us with this image in this condition sent by her to me on that occasion - so you could hardly call that us manipulating this particular photograph)?
We particularly wanted that photograph copied from the senior investigating officers album, because of the "wet state of the blood" which we believed showed that Sheila had very recently died, or her body had been very recently stage managed by the police?
-
I would also like to add that because this particular image was one of the copies made by Michael de Stefano and the ink in his copying machine had started to run out, that my colleague retained these copies and posted them to me by email attachment a few days or weeks later ( so there is a record showing the corresponding email sent between us with this image in this condition sent by her to me on that occasion - so you could hardly call that us manipulating this particular photograph)?
I don't think anyone is accusing you of manipulating the photograph.
-
We particularly wanted that photograph copied from the senior investigating officers album, because of the "wet state of the blood" which we believed showed that Sheila had very recently died, or her body had been very recently stage managed by the police?
There were other photograph we saw which we simply did not have time to copy or get them copied because batteries ran out for our cameras, and the colour ink in the photocopying machine in the office also started to run out...
-
I don't think anyone is accusing you of manipulating the photograph.
This is the true explanation for how the two exact images are displayed in different contrast, colour and tone...
Blood on Sheila's neck / throat was /is wet - it is wet because either Sheila had very recently died or that someone had very recently stage managed her body, and Jeremy could not be the person involved in killing her (if that is the correct interpretation) or of stage managing her body (if that is the correct interpretation) - Jeremy is innocent, and he killed no-one, and he did not stage manage the bodies in keeping with what the prosecution suggested to the jury at his trial, it was the police who shot and killed Sheila, and it was the police who stage managed her body...
-
This is the true explanation for how the two exact images are displayed in different contrast, colour and tone...
Blood on Sheila's neck / throat was /is wet - it is wet because either Sheila had very recently died or that someone had very recently stage managed her body, and Jeremy could not be the person involved in killing her (if that is the correct interpretation) or of stage managing her body (if that is the correct interpretation) - Jeremy is innocent, and he killed no-one, and he did not stage manage the bodies in keeping with what the prosecution suggested to the jury at his trial, it was the police who shot and killed Sheila, and it was the police who stage managed her body...
Why did Essex police and the CPS hide this photograph showing the wet looking blood from Bamber, his legal team, and the court which tried him for the murders? Why was it concealed inside the Senior investigating officers album which did not come to light or surface until the beginning of 2004, when Ewen Smith managed to obtain access to it after I found documentation referring to its existence just beforehand?
It was concealed because it would have exposed the prosecutions case as a fabrication and manipulation of the true circumstances relating to how Sheila died in the bedroom that morning...
-
This is the true explanation for how the two exact images are displayed in different contrast, colour and tone...
Blood on Sheila's neck / throat was /is wet - it is wet because either Sheila had very recently died or that someone had very recently stage managed her body, and Jeremy could not be the person involved in killing her (if that is the correct interpretation) or of stage managing her body (if that is the correct interpretation) - Jeremy is innocent, and he killed no-one, and he did not stage manage the bodies in keeping with what the prosecution suggested to the jury at his trial, it was the police who shot and killed Sheila, and it was the police who stage managed her body...
That is not the way I see it Mike,
Why could Bamber not have stage managed her body? You are relying on that photograph? From the police whom you say conspired to kill her in the first place. Why Mike are you willing to believe a photograph taken by the police but not their version of events. Do you not think for one second that if there was a conspiracy the photographs would have been the FIRST thing they would doctor? Are you suggesting that they are clever enough to orchestrate a wide, complex conspiracy but not to alter a photograph?
Mike, it is utter nonsense. The truth is being stretched to unbelievable proportions. No court in the world is ever going to buy this. Absolutely no way. This is why he has been languishing in clink for the last 27 years.
-
I would also like to add that because this particular image was one of the copies made by Michael de Stefano and the ink in his copying machine had started to run out, that my colleague retained these copies and posted them to me by email attachment a few days or weeks later ( so there is a record showing the corresponding email sent between us with this image in this condition sent by her to me on that occasion - so you could hardly call that us manipulating this particular photograph)?
Thank you for contributing Mike. I'm still a bit confused as to how the 'wet' image came about. Are you saying the the lower 'poor' image was a photo-copied image, with a diminishing colour cartridge, whereas the upper image is a photograph of a photograph. Or is the 'wet' image a photo-copied image taken while the colour cartridge was still operating fully? Sorry if I'm a bit slow on the uptake.
-
Thank you for contributing Mike. I'm still a bit confused as to how the 'wet' image came about. Are you saying the the lower 'poor' image was a photo-copied image, with a diminishing colour cartridge, whereas the upper image is a photograph of a photograph. Or is the 'wet' image a photo-copied image taken while the colour cartridge was still operating fully? Sorry if I'm a bit slow on the uptake.
It's nothing to do with photocopier cartridges. This is the photo of a photo taken by Mike, and from which the lower 'greyer' blow up is taken:
(http://i.imgur.com/JEcTv.jpg)
The 'redder' blow up has been taken by the defence from the original of that photo, or possibly from the negative if it was available. The version of the redder blow up that we see appears to have been enhanced, presumably by the newspaper which published it. Alternatively, the redder blow up is exactly what was submitted by the defence and then given to the paper, in which case it is fairly obvious why it was rejected.
-
It's nothing to do with photocopier cartridges. This is the photo of a photo taken by Mike, and from which the lower 'greyer' blow up is taken:
(http://i.imgur.com/JEcTv.jpg)
The 'redder' blow up has been taken by the defence from the original of that photo, or possibly from the negative if it was available. The version of the redder blow up that we see appears to have been enhanced, presumably by the newspaper which published it. Alternatively, the redder blow up is exactly what was submitted by the defence and then given to the paper, in which case it is fairly obvious why it was rejected.
Bridget, the computer I'm on today, wont show some images. Can you please provide me with a link to the image instead, to see if I can access it that way. This is all getting confusing for me :-[
-
http://i.imgur.com/JEcTv.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/JEcTv.jpg)
-
http://i.imgur.com/JEcTv.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/JEcTv.jpg)
No joy, I'll have to check later on tonight.
-
It's nothing to do with photocopier cartridges. This is the photo of a photo taken by Mike, and from which the lower 'greyer' blow up is taken:
(http://i.imgur.com/JEcTv.jpg)
The 'redder' blow up has been taken by the defence from the original of that photo, or possibly from the negative if it was available. The version of the redder blow up that we see appears to have been enhanced, presumably by the newspaper which published it. Alternatively, the redder blow up is exactly what was submitted by the defence and then given to the paper, in which case it is fairly obvious why it was rejected.
First of all, get your facts right - there were two of us taking photographs with our cameras when we went to London in 2004, which one of us are you saying took this picture (and which picture are you referring to)? I have explained that during the photocopying of some pictures from the senior investigating officers album, the colour cartridge was running out which caused a reduction in printing quality of the said image. If my colleague took a photograph of a photograph using her camera, then of course I would not have been aware of that because I was not controlling the use of her camera. Another explanation was that when she sent me some of the images in her possession, these could have been photocopied by her before she scanned them over to me, and what is more, I was not in control of the settings of her scanner, nor did I pay particular attention to any settings on my printer which printed off the said image, or images...
-
What difference does it make which of you took it?
-
What difference does it make which of you took it?
It makes a difference if I did not take the picture, because if I didn't take the picture how can I answer accurately what setting her camera was set at, or hope to know her scanner settings when she posted a copy to me, or even what settings her printer were set at, if she copied the image she took at the offices of GDS, in 2004? I did not have possession of the original poor quality images given to us in London by Michael De Stefano, and I had no control over how much colour ink might be inside the cartridges which were in use inside his printer at that time. I am not making up excuses I am merely trying to explain how several poor quality images came to be in my possession. It is also possible that I cropped some areas in some of the images I received from her, which were of interest to everyone and that only ceratin parts or areas of the poor quality images were posted on the forum - without checking I can;'t say for sure what took place, other than what I have already said...
-
It makes a difference if I did not take the picture, because if I didn't take the picture how can I answer accurately what setting her camera was set at, or hope to know her scanner settings when she posted a copy to me, or even what settings her printer were set at, if she copied the image she took at the offices of GDS, in 2004? I did not have possession of the original poor quality images given to us in London by Michael De Stefano, and I had no control over how much colour ink might be inside the cartridges which were in use inside his printer at that time. I am not making up excuses I am merely trying to explain how several poor quality images came to be in my possession. It is also possible that I cropped some areas in some of the images I received from her, which were of interest to everyone and that only ceratin parts or areas of the poor quality images were posted on the forum - without checking I can;'t say for sure what took place, other than what I have already said...
None of that matters Mike, none of it is relevant to the point I'm making and I'm not accusing you of anything. If anything I'm doing the same as you - explaining why the two versions of the photo are different. Chill...
-
None of that matters Mike, none of it is relevant to the point I'm making and I'm not accusing you of anything. If anything I'm doing the same as you - explaining why the two versions of the photo are different. Chill...
OK, but in any event I have not done anything wrong, you could just as easily say that when the police developed the photographs that PC Bird took at the seen, all manner of tricks could have been used, to present images involving different settings with use of the camera that took pictures, or later in the development stage. One thing I can report on which I know as fact is that Sheila was photographed on the bed at a time when there was no horizontal blood running, leaking and pouring from any wound upon her neck / throat, or the corners of her mouth, etc...
I have seen all 581 pictures in the senior investigating officers album, something which Jeremy did not get to see before his trial, or during his trial, or during any subsequent appeal hearing (2002). Many of these pictures, did not see the light of day until 2004, and this feature has not yet been dealt with by any court of appeal, which I think is absolutely scandalous...
-
OK, but in any event I have not done anything wrong, you could just as easily say that when the police developed the photographs that PC Bird took at the seen, all manner of tricks could have been used, to present images involving different settings with use of the camera that took pictures, or later in the development stage. One thing I can report on which I know as fact is that Sheila was photographed on the bed at a time when there was no horizontal blood running, leaking and pouring from any wound upon her neck / throat, or the corners of her mouth, etc...
I have seen all 581 pictures in the senior investigating officers album, something which Jeremy did not get to see before his trial, or during his trial, or during any subsequent appeal hearing (2002). Many of these pictures, did not see the light of day until 2004, and this feature has not yet been dealt with by any court of appeal, which I think is absolutely scandalous...
No, you've done nothing wrong.
Can you clarify exactly when that photo, the one in my post which has '27' in the corner, was first disclosed to the defence?
-
It's nothing to do with photocopier cartridges. This is the photo of a photo taken by Mike, and from which the lower 'greyer' blow up is taken:
(http://i.imgur.com/JEcTv.jpg)
The 'redder' blow up has been taken by the defence from the original of that photo, or possibly from the negative if it was available. The version of the redder blow up that we see appears to have been enhanced, presumably by the newspaper which published it. Alternatively, the redder blow up is exactly what was submitted by the defence and then given to the paper, in which case it is fairly obvious why it was rejected.
"Look at these two crime scene photographs, one numbered 27 and the other numbered 32 - which was taken first"?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4312;image)
"Now, look at the image which shows the wet blood, and tell me which picture (27 or 32) was taken first"?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=18724;image)
Look at the shape and position of the triangular bloodstain on the top right hand side of Sheila's nightdress, why and under what circumstances did it alter or change?
-
One thing which also becomes absolutely clear by reference to photographs 27 and 32, is that the position of the rifle has altered but the shape of her right arm, in comparison to the bloodied marks on the front lower right of her nightdress remained the same - why would police alter the position of the rifle so that its barrel was shifted from resting against her neck in 27 to the muzzle of the rifle ending up beneath her chin in 32, without effecting the shape and position of her right arm and hand in relation to the position of the bloodied mark on her nightdress?
-
One thing which also becomes absolutely clear by reference to photographs 27 and 32, is that the position of the rifle has altered but the shape of her right arm, in comparison to the bloodied marks on the front lower right of her nightdress remained the same - why would police alter the position of the rifle so that its barrel was shifted from resting against her neck in 27 to the muzzle of the rifle ending up beneath her chin in 32, without effecting the shape and position of her right arm and hand in relation to the position of the bloodied mark on her nightdress?
Because if she had shot her self the rifle would not have ended up with the barrel / muzzle so high. So in order to reinforce that she had shot her self, it had to be made to look as though the barrel / muzzle corresponded with the wounds and a more realistic position on her body.
-
Because if she had shot her self the rifle would not have ended up with the barrel / muzzle so high. So in order to reinforce that she had shot her self, it had to be made to look as though the barrel / muzzle corresponded with the wounds and a more realistic position on her body.
That is an excellent observation, and one I had not thought about - well done...
-
In order to make it fit in with the conclusion that Sheila had taken her own life by shooting herself under the chin, police had to re-stage the body of Sheila, with the barrel beneath her chin, rather than resting against it on the left hand side, because she could not have committed suicide and the rifle end up on her body with its barrel on that side of her neck / throat, so they had to move the gun and leave the barrel of the rifle somewhere beneath her chin (as pointed out to me by ROCH)...
-
One thing which also becomes absolutely clear by reference to photographs 27 and 32, is that the position of the rifle has altered but the shape of her right arm, in comparison to the bloodied marks on the front lower right of her nightdress remained the same - why would police alter the position of the rifle so that its barrel was shifted from resting against her neck in 27 to the muzzle of the rifle ending up beneath her chin in 32, without effecting the shape and position of her right arm and hand in relation to the position of the bloodied mark on her nightdress?
Mike, how is it that both shots are to the right of her neck so it follows that leakage from them means an accumulation of blood would pool in her right armpit, but although her head is turned to the right there is only a thin trickle emitting from the right side of her mouth? the thickest flow is from the left side of her mouth and runs back to her eye. How does anything flow uphill, or is it the angle at which the picture has been taken?
-
I may have spotted a problem with that theory. The photograph which is duplicated both matt and wet blood in appearance... the two we have all been arguing about... where is the barrel? Is it in the higher position or in the lower position?
-
I may have spotted a problem with that theory. The photograph which is duplicated both matt and wet blood in appearance... the two we have all been arguing about... where is the barrel? Is it in the higher position or in the lower position?
Could you please enlighten us all...
-
I may have spotted a problem with that theory. The photograph which is duplicated both matt and wet blood in appearance... the two we have all been arguing about... where is the barrel? Is it in the higher position or in the lower position?
You are right Roch, I have had a quick look they are two different shots. The rifle has been moved. Hope this is what you are on about, if not tell me to shove off....lol :) :) :) :) So 32 has to be the first picture.
-
Patti / Mike. I cant view some images on the computer I'm on. Go to reply 57 and please check which position the rifle is in both images (which is very probably the same photo but not defintely the same photo). Is the barrel higher or lower in either or both of those images?
-
I may have spotted a problem with that theory. The photograph which is duplicated both matt and wet blood in appearance... the two we have all been arguing about... where is the barrel? Is it in the higher position or in the lower position?
I'm not sure that these photos show changes in position of the rifle at all, the apparent differences appear to be down to a change in the angle of the shot. I think they both show the rifle in the lower position, but if the don't, then it's in the higher position in the photo we've been discussing.
The numbers on these photos appear to be court album numbers, is that correct?
-
I'm not sure that these photos show changes in position of the rifle at all, the apparent differences appear to be down to a change in the angle of the shot. I think they both show the rifle in the lower position, but if the don't, then it's in the higher position in the photo we've been discussing.
The numbers on these photos appear to be court album numbers, is that correct?
No...
Stop trying to twist this into a case of these photographs, (27 and 32) must have formed part and parcel of the court album (223), when they were not disclosed at all to the defence, or to the court which tried the case in October 1986. These two pictures (27 and 32) formed part and parcel of the deliberately withheld senior investigating officers album (581) which did not surface until the beginning of 2004...
-
Patti / Mike. I cant view some images on the computer I'm on. Go to reply 57 and please check which position the rifle is in both images (which is very probably the same photo but not defintely the same photo). Is the barrel higher or lower in either or both of those images?
Hi Roch. I think they are from the same negative. One which has been developed properly and the other is a zoomed in image making the resolution hazy....they look the same to me...but maybe the blurred one is poorly done...having had take and scanned spoils the image. That is my opinion any way.... ??? :) :) :) :) :)
-
Hi Roch. I think they are from the same negative. One which has been developed properly and the other is a zoomed in image making the resolution hazy....they look the same to me...but maybe the blurred one is poorly done...having had take and scanned spoils the image. That is my opinion any way.... ??? :) :) :) :) :)
Thanks Patti. Is the barrel / muzzle in the higher or lower position? Is it past her neck or underneath her chin?
-
No...
Stop trying to twist this into a case of these photographs, (27 and 32) must have formed part and parcel of the court album (223), when they were not disclosed at all to the defence, or to the court which tried the case in October 1986. These two pictures (27 and 32) formed part and parcel of the deliberately withheld senior investigating officers album (581) which did not surface until the beginning of 2004...
The numbers of those photos fit with the court album list produced by Jeremy. They don't fit with the master copy album numbers, and I'm not convinced that they would use a different numbering system in the SIO album. I know you're going to disagree with me, but I believe these photos are from the court album, and are also among the ones examined by McDonell (or whatever his name was) in 1992.
-
No...
Stop trying to twist this into a case of these photographs, (27 and 32) must have formed part and parcel of the court album (223), when they were not disclosed at all to the defence, or to the court which tried the case in October 1986. These two pictures (27 and 32) formed part and parcel of the deliberately withheld senior investigating officers album (581) which did not surface until the beginning of 2004...
I agree Mike there was no mention of the rifle being moved in the 2002 appeal. Therefore the photo's should be classed as new evidence but we know the CCRC don't we.... :) :) :)
-
Thanks Patti. Is the barrel / muzzle in the higher or lower position? Is it past her neck or underneath her chin?
Hi Roch if you are talking about the images in conversation number 57 then the rifle appears to be in the same place on both images....
When I said that the rifle was different in each shot I was talking about the photo's 27 and 32....the rifle is definitely different in both images....I have only had a slurp...as yet...lol :) :) :)
-
Hi Roch if you are talking about the images in conversation number 57 then the rifle appears to be in the same place on both images....
When I said that the rifle was different in each shot I was talking about the photo's 27 and 32....the rifle is definitely different in both images....I have only had a slurp...as yet...lol :) :) :)
Yes thanks, re your first point... is it in the higher position past her neck or the lower position underneath her chin? Higher or lower?
Re your second point, I don't think it is likely that the police would disclose to the defence, different photographs with the rifle in different positions. Nor is it likely the defence could have missed such a glaringly obvious inconsistancy.
-
Hi Roch if you are talking about the images in conversation number 57 then the rifle appears to be in the same place on both images....
When I said that the rifle was different in each shot I was talking about the photo's 27 and 32....the rifle is definitely different in both images....I have only had a slurp...as yet...lol :) :) :)
I will verify that, Patti. In one image it almost appears that the rifle is pushed into her chin, in the other it seems closer to the base of her throat. I think that in both shots her arm is in the same position. I will have to go back and check, but if I'm correct wouldn't the different positions of the rifle require her arm to altet position?
-
Yes thanks, re your first point... is it in the higher position past her neck or the lower position underneath her chin? Higher or lower?
Re your second point, I don't think it is likely that the police would disclose to the defence, different photographs with the rifle in different positions. Nor is it likely the defence could have missed such a glaringly obvious inconsistancy.
It is in the higher position Roch. which suggest the rifle had already been moved...I think this is what you are getting at....this could suggest that it had certainly been moved after the 2nd shot...
I am not sure if the movement of the rifle was brought up in the original trial. It wasn't brought up in the 2002 appeal nor the 1991 appeal. I think its from part of the new evidence that was presented by criminologist Mark Williams-Thomas. I could be wrong of course...Do you want me to check? :) :) :) :)
-
I will verify that, Patti. In one image it almost appears that the rifle is pushed into her chin, in the other it seems closer to the base of her throat. I think that in both shots her arm is in the same position. I will have to go back and check, but if I'm correct wouldn't the different positions of the rifle require her arm to altet position?
Hey April...Nice to see you....Look at the images on conversation 57...I think the rifle is in the same position.
Then look at the numbered photo's 27 and 32. :) :) :) :) The rifle is in a different position in each shot. :) :) :) :)
-
It is in the higher position Roch. which suggest the rifle had already been moved...I think this is what you are getting at....this could suggest that it had certainly been moved after the 2nd shot...
I am not sure if the movement of the rifle was brought up in the original trial. It wasn't brought up in the 2002 appeal nor the 1991 appeal. I think its from part of the new evidence that was presented by criminologist Mark Williams-Thomas. I could be wrong of course...Do you want me to check? :) :) :) :)
OK thanks Patti, I'm trying to work this out. Am I right in stating that there are no 'wet' blood photos on this forum with the rifle in the lower position?
-
OK thanks Patti, I'm trying to work this out. Am I right in stating that there are no 'wet' blood photos on this forum with the rifle in the lower position?
There is only one 'wet blood'photo as far as I'm aware, what are you struggling with?
-
There is only one 'wet blood'photo as far as I'm aware, what are you struggling with?
Not correct my dear Bridget, for if one is wet they are all wet....It is that the one that we see in true colour has been developed from a negative...in high resolution...
If you think there is only one wet one, then that wet one was taken after the rifle had been moved....which could suggest that she had recently been shot.... :P :P :P :P
Hello btw...X
-
Not correct my dear Bridget, for if one is wet they are all wet....It is that the one that we see in true colour has been developed from a negative...in high resolution...
If you think there is only one wet one, then that wet one was taken after the rifle had been moved....which could suggest that she had recently been shot.... :P :P :P :P
Hello btw...X
Hello Ms P x
I know, but you're just confusing Roch and his brains are gonna fry. He means the one that actually shows what is being described as wet blood.
-
Hey April...Nice to see you....Look at the images on conversation 57...I think the rifle is in the same position.
Then look at the numbered photo's 27 and 32. :) :) :) :) The rifle is in a different position in each shot. :) :) :) :)
Yes, Patti. But can you explain why, with her head inclined to the right, there is heavier bloodflow from the left side of her mouth than from the right?
-
Hello Ms P x
I know, but you're just confusing Roch and his brains are gonna fry. He means the one that actually shows what is being described as wet blood.
The one that shows the wet blood was taken after the rifle had been moved. The rifle position is not in the correct place. PC Bird took photographs twice in the bedroom. It is documented. Why he was called back to do a re-take is not known....I'd like to know why? For you would have thought that after he had taken all the photo's of the crime scene, that was it, but apparently not, he went back and too some more....which is unusual..... :) :) :) :)
-
The one that shows the wet blood was taken after the rifle had been moved. The rifle position is not in the correct place. PC Bird took photographs twice in the bedroom. It is documented. Why he was called back to do a re-take is not known....I'd like to know why? For you would have thought that after he had taken all the photo's of the crime scene, that was it, but apparently not, he went back and too some more....which is unusual..... :) :) :) :)
The wet blood one is 27, and I believe that was taken before 32. But anyway, I disagree that the rifle is in different positions in those two photos, it just looks like a change in camera positions to me. Maybe someone could do some experiments with a broomstick and post the results? :)
-
The wet blood one is 27, and I believe that was taken before 32. But anyway, I disagree that the rifle is in different positions in those two photos, it just looks like a change in camera positions to me. Maybe someone could do some experiments with a broomstick and post the results? :)
It has got northing whatsoever to do with the angle that the photographs (27 and 32) were taken at - er when did you say you were due to have your eyes tested?
Barrel of rifle resting against Sheila's neck / throat in 27, and beneath chin in other (32)...
-
It has got northing whatsoever to do with the angle that the photographs (27 and 32) were taken at - er when did you say you were due to have your eyes tested?
Ha ha! It has, IMO.
-
Ha ha! It has, IMO.
Now you are being quite ridiculous, everyone can see the barrel in 27 is resting against the left side of Sheila's throat (it is in physical contact) and that in 32 it is not, it has not got anything at all to do with the angle the pictures were taken, police stage managed the body with the rifle in different positions against her throat and beneath her throat. You would be very hard pushed to get any photographic expert to back you up on that fantasy I am afraid...
Stop being silly...
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=18724;image)
(http://i.imgur.com/JEcTv.jpg)
"Look at these two crime scene photographs, one numbered 27 and the other numbered 32 - which was taken first"?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4312;image)
-
Yes, Patti. But can you explain why, with her head inclined to the right, there is heavier bloodflow from the left side of her mouth than from the right?
well spotted april. I hadn't noticed that before. No I can that. I might be able to give a theory on why all the blood flow right...which is because she was lunged on her right side...she may have flipped back on the 2nd shot...and this is why her head appears to be at an angle... :) :) :) ;D
-
Now you are being quite ridiculous, everyone can see the barrel in 27 is resting against the left side of Sheila's throat (it is in physical contact) and that in 32 it is not, it has not got anything at all to do with the angle the pictures were taken, police stage managed the body with the rifle in different position s against her throat and beneath her throat. You would be very hard pushed to get any photographic expert to back you up on that fantasy I am afraid...
Stop being silly...
Honestly Mike, to me it looks like in 27 the the barrel is above her neck and has lined up with it due to the angle, but is not in contact with it. If you look at 32 you can see by the shadow of the barrel that's it's a few inches above her body because it's propped up on her chest (sorry folks, I can't avoid pointing out here that Sheila had breast implants). If you were to tip the barrel down so that it touched her neck it would pivot on her chest and the butt would be up in the air.
-
Number 32 is taken before 27......That is all I am saying... :) :) :)
-
Number 32 is taken before 27......That is all I am saying... :) :) :)
Based on what?
-
Honestly Mike, to me it looks like in 27 the the barrel is above her neck and has lined up with it due to the angle, but is not in contact with it. If you look at 32 you can see by the shadow of the barrel that's it's a few inches above her body because it's propped up on her chest (sorry folks, I can't avoid pointing out here that Sheila had breast implants). If you were to tip the barrel down so that it touched her neck it would pivot on her chest and the butt would be up in the air.
No chance whatsoever, turn 32 sideways so that head is turned in same direction, there is absolutely no way the guns barrel is in the same position in both phoptographs...
-
No chance whatsoever, turn 32 sideways so that head is turned in same direction, there is absolutely no way the guns barrel is in the same position in both phoptographs...
I've looked at them every which way and still come to the same conclusion. 32 is taken from a different angle to 27. Girls, try it, find a stick and lay on the floor with it on your body - see what happens when you try to make it touch your neck (it won't work for you Mike, your beer gut will get in the way ;) )
-
I've looked at them every which way and still come to the same conclusion. 32 is taken from a different angle to 27. Girls, try it, find a stick and lay on the floor with it on your body - see what happens when you try to make it touch your neck (it won't work for you Mike, your beer gut will get in the way ;) )
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4312;image)
Visible shadow on neck in image 32 defines how far up the neck the barrel of the rifle could be, if laid against the body, there is no way you or anybody could say that by changing the angle of the photograph it could displace the barrel as shown in 27 to a different position in 32...
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4309;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4313;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4314;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4315;image)
-
Based on what?
Documented facts Bridget. The rifle was moved to uncover the blood at the wrist, see Cooks statement. Then the rifle had been made safe and was photographed from the stairs, by PC Bird where it was propt up against the window of the main bedroom...
PC BirdPC Bird took 27 on his 2nd visit, which is documented....look at the blood marks on her nightie...it is obvious that 32 was taken before 27..... :) :) :)
-
Bridget, please look in the case related photograph section. The muzzle of the gun cannot be both past her upper gun shot wound and below it, unless it has been moved. No angle of photography can produce that effect. It's as plain as day. Or as Mike Tesko might say... as plain as a pike staff.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DMdlA7mRX0I/UA62mMeXxKI/AAAAAAAASeo/HtKc00vuHu4/s1600/specsavers.JPG)
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4312;image)
Visible shadow on neck in image 32 defines how far up the neck the barrel of the rifle could be, if laid against the body, there is no way you or anybody could say that by changing the angle of the photograph it could displace the barrel as shown in 27 to a different position in 32...
27 is taken from down near her hips, which has the optical effect of lengthening the barrel, so that it appears to have moved up on her body. I can say that and I do.
-
Bridget, please look in the case related photograph section. The muzzle of the gun cannot be both past her upper gun shot wound and below it, unless it has been moved. No angle of photography can produce that effect. It's as plain as day. Or as Mike Tesko might say... as plain as a pike staff.
It is not both above and below that wound in reality, it just appears that way. The end of the barrel is a few inches above her body, and the change in angle certainly would produce that effect.
-
http://i.imgur.com/JEcTv.jpg
-
27 is taken from down near her hips, which has the optical effect of lengthening the barrel, so that it appears to have moved up on her body. I can say that and I do.
You can say it by all means. But close inspection of her crime scene shots in the archive clearly show what I'm saying.
-
You can say it by all means. But close inspection her crime scene shots in the archive clearly show what I'm saying.
You think they do, but I'm looking at the same photos and to me they clearly don't.
-
well spotted april. I hadn't noticed that before. No I can that. I might be able to give a theory on why all the blood flow right...which is because she was lunged on her right side...she may have flipped back on the 2nd shot...and this is why her head appears to be at an angle... :) :) :) ;D
Thanks for that, Patti, it's been bugging me for ages, because it looks unbalanced.
-
Thanks for that, Patti, it's been bugging me for ages, because it looks unbalanced.
Could it be that whilst her head is inclined towards her right shoulder, her face is actually tipped slightly to the left? It's hard to see from the photos.
-
You think they do, but I'm looking at the same photos and to me they clearly don't.
I have to go out for a bit but I'll try to explain this a different way later..
-
Sorry to have to repeatedly post graphic images. In all photos, look for the beveled end of the barrel.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4524;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4329;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4315;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=18724;image)
-
The last three are photo's from number 27 Bridget. The 1st photo is from 27......I know what you have gone out for, please don't get inebriated....lololol ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Unless it's an optical illusion but the barrels look to be different in length.
-
If you follow the line of the necklace , it appears obvious !!
-
The last three are photo's from number 27 Bridget. The 1st photo is from 27......I know what you have gone out for, please don't get inebriated....lololol ;D ;D ;D ;D
Roch I am calling you Bridget...do you forgive me? It's the wine I given yesterday...hahahaha By a famous forum poster...lol :) :) :) :) :) :)
-
Roch I am calling you Bridget...do you forgive me? It's the wine I given yesterday...hahahaha By a famous forum poster...lol :) :) :) :) :) :)
I've been a bit rough today my self Patti. I need to go on a health kick :P
-
If you follow the line of the necklace , it appears obvious !!
Well spotted Jon.
-
Sorry to have to repeatedly post graphic images. In all photos, look for the beveled end of the barrel.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4524;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4329;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4315;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=18724;image)
I can only pt it in very naive form. In the small picture the business end (bevelled?) appears to be touching her chain and pointing towards her wounds. In the larger pictures it appears to bypass her wounds and point towards her lelt ear.
-
I can only put it in very naive form. In the small picture the business end (bevelled?) appears to be touching her chain and pointing towards her wounds. In the larger pictures it appears to bypass her wounds and point towards her left ear.
It's patently obvious that the rifle has been moved. The reason why I asked what position it was in, in the wet photo, was to see if it fitted with my suggestion that it had been moved lower, to fit better with the wounds, i.e. to fit better with 'suicide'.
-
The last three are photo's from number 27 Bridget. The 1st photo is from 27......I know what you have gone out for, please don't get inebriated....lololol ;D ;D ;D ;D
The ist picture is clearly different to the other 3 - the rifle has been moved. There is no where you could stand that would make the end of the rifle look that far down in comparison to the other three. I have a friend who is a professional photographer - I'll ask what he thinks.
-
I've been a bit rough today my self Patti. I need to go on a health kick :P
Roch if we join the same clinic we could have a serious chat about this case....lol :) :) :) :)
-
The ist picture is clearly different to the other 3 - the rifle has been moved. There is no where you could stand that would make the end of the rifle look that far down in comparison to the other three. I have a friend who is a professional photographer - I'll ask what he thinks.
If you lay or crouched very low at hip level and took a photo across the top of the rifle, it might be possible to create an illusion that it was higher. No pics taken at such a low angle have been displayed on this forum
-
Roch if we join the same clinic we could have a serious chat about this case....lol :) :) :) :)
I'm bookin my self in to a steamed broccoli clinic from Monday ;D
-
I'm bookin my self in to a steamed broccoli clinic from Monday ;D
Ha! I'm booking myself into a beer festival, are you coming...lol :) :) :) :)
-
Ha! I'm booking myself into a beer festival, are you coming...lol :) :) :) :)
Is it Munich? 8)
-
Is it Munich? 8)
Nah Manchester....lol :) :) :) :)
-
Documented facts Bridget. The rifle was moved to uncover the blood at the wrist, see Cooks statement. Then the rifle had been made safe and was photographed from the stairs, by PC Bird where it was propt up against the window of the main bedroom...
PC BirdPC Bird took 27 on his 2nd visit, which is documented....look at the blood marks on her nightie...it is obvious that 32 was taken before 27..... :) :) :)
Where is it documented that he took 32 on his first visit and 27 on his his second?
-
Contrary to what some are suggesting, (angle of photographs accounts for rile barrel appearing to be resting against neck / throat in 27 as opposed to 32), you only have to study the detail in this image to confirm that the barrel is resting against Sheila's neck:-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4315;image)
"Shadow along length of barrel is consistent along its entire length, which would not be the case if the end part of the barrel was in the position shown in image 32"...
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4312;image)
By studying features of 32, you can see that the shadow relating to the end of the rifles barrel (which is not touching the neck / throat) is offset to the left because of the angle at which the photographer took this particular picture. This phenomena is not reproduced in 27, when because if the end of the rifle barrel was not in contact with the body, the shadow should be displayed differently to what it is - the length and characteristics of the shadow, therefore, along the entire length of the photograph (first image in this post) above, establishes that in 27 the barrel was resting physically against the body, rather than hovering above it...
-
Contrary to what some are suggesting, (angle of photographs accounts for rile barrel appearing to be resting against neck / throat in 27 as opposed to 32), you only have to study the detail in this image to confirm that the barrel is resting against Sheila's neck:-
"Shadow along length of barrel is consistent along its entire length, which would not be the case if the end part of the barrel was in the position shown in image 32"...
It is not physically possible for the barrel to be resting on the left hand side of Sheila's neck as it appears to do in photo 27. Look at this b&w photo:
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4304;image)
The rifle butt is central to her body, laying as it is along the line where her legs meet. The trigger is roughly in the groin area, and the gun changes angle at that point and draws a line from the groin to the right hand side of her chest, and because of the angle the photo is taken from appears to extend up towards the point of her chin. If viewed from a point on the floor beside Sheila, the gun would also elevate along its length from butt to muzzle, because in a person of normal weight the legs and pelvis are quite a bit lower than the front of the chest when laying on the back.
Now photo 32:
(http://i.imgur.com/SK1z9.jpg)
The butt end of the gun is still central to her body and the barrel is still resting on the right hand side of the chest, so that the gun is actually pointing slightly towards the photographer and is also raised towards him. You can see that the barrel is actually a few inches above the neck and collar bone by the shadow. Because of the angle the photo has been taken the barrel appears to be foreshortened.
Photo 27:
(http://i.imgur.com/JEcTv.jpg)
The butt is still central to her body, and the barrel still angles from the groin across the right hand side of the chest. It is physically impossible for it to then touch the left hand side of her neck, because it would have to bend not only in that direction, but also downwards. What you are seeing in 27 is the barrel in front of and above that side of her neck, and it is also lengthened by the angle of the photo. If you still don't believe me find an average sized woman, lay her on the floor with a stick in the position of the gun. You will see for yourself exactly what I describe.
-
For the gun not to have been moved , you must be able to see the necklace in both photographs !!
-
For the gun not to have been moved , you must be able to see the necklace in both photographs !!
You can see the necklace in both photographs. The reason the gun appears to have moved in relation to the necklace is described above. The barrel of the gun is several inches above and to the right (her right) of her neck. Try it.
-
You can see the necklace in both photographs. The reason the gun appears to have moved in relation to the necklace is described above. The barrel of the gun is several inches above and to the right (her right) of her neck. Try it.
You can not , it's like the ball crossing the line in football , if you can see the grass between the ball and line it as crossed the line , no matter what angle you photograph the line , in this case the ball as comfortably crossed the line !! The necklace must always be able to be seen here !!
-
You can not , it's like the ball crossing the line in football , if you can see the grass between the ball and line it as crossed the line , no matter what angle you photograph the line , in this case the ball as comfortably crossed the line !! The necklace must always be able to be seen here !!
If the ball is in the air you cannot tell whether it has crossed the line unless you are on the line.
To be honest, this theory is so easily disproven it's not worth debating. Believe the gun has moved if you want to.
-
It is not physically possible for the barrel to be resting on the left hand side of Sheila's neck as it appears to do in photo 27. Look at this b&w photo:
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4304;image)
The rifle butt is central to her body, laying as it is along the line where her legs meet. The trigger is roughly in the groin area, and the gun changes angle at that point and draws a line from the groin to the right hand side of her chest, and because of the angle the photo is taken from appears to extend up towards the point of her chin. If viewed from a point on the floor beside Sheila, the gun would also elevate along its length from butt to muzzle, because in a person of normal weight the legs and pelvis are quite a bit lower than the front of the chest when laying on the back.
Now photo 32:
(http://i.imgur.com/SK1z9.jpg)
The butt end of the gun is still central to her body and the barrel is still resting on the right hand side of the chest, so that the gun is actually pointing slightly towards the photographer and is also raised towards him. You can see that the barrel is actually a few inches above the neck and collar bone by the shadow. Because of the angle the photo has been taken the barrel appears to be foreshortened.
Photo 27:
(http://i.imgur.com/JEcTv.jpg)
The butt is still central to her body, and the barrel still angles from the groin across the left hand side of the chest. It is physically impossible for it to then touch the left hand side of her neck, because it would have to bend not only in that direction, but also downwards. What you are seeing in 27 is the barrel in front of and above that side of her neck, and it is also lengthened by the angle of the photo. If you still don't believe me find an average sized woman, lay her on the floor with a stick in the position of the gun. You will see for yourself exactly what I describe.
Your explanation cannot be right, because for the barrel of the rifle to be extended in the manner you propose the photographer would have to have been lower down the body and closer to it, than is apparent in the photograph 27, where the vantage point of the photographer is not in such a position as to create the effect you are trying to promote - you are trying to introduce a feature which does not equate with the position and angle that the photographer was standing in with his camera when he took photographs 27 as opposed to 32...
The other feature which you appear to completely overlook, is the way the shadow from the length of the guns barrel does not deviate which it would do, because if the end of the barrel was not resting upon the body (32), you wound get the sort of deviation in the shadow as shown in 32. You do not get this in 27 because at that time, the barrel of the gun was / is resting upon the body (neck) which produced a shadow that is perfectly consistent along the whole length of the guns barrel which is resting upon the body and against the neck. You could not get that shadow effect in such a consistent format if the barrel of the gun was not resting against the body as in 32, no matter which angle the photographer took his picture from - you would always get a deviation in / of the shadow because of the gap between body and barrel of rifle. The shadow along the full length of the rifles barrel (as in 27), therefore, is a key feature which helps to establish that the barrel of the gun is positioned differently in 27 as opposed to 32. The effect of shadow deviation to which I am referring to can clearly be seen by looking at 32, where the shadow from the end of the guns barrel deviates to the left in a totally different direction, all because the barrel is not resting against or upon the body...
-
For your description to be correct the camera would have to be low down above SC head and shoulder's and it is not both are from a vantage point above SC !!
-
If the ball is in the air you cannot tell whether it has crossed the line unless you are on the line.
To be honest, this theory is so easily disproven it's not worth debating. Believe the gun has moved if you want to.
Gun was moved, and you are being absolutely ridiculous - just look at the shape of the bloodstain on the nightdress (upper right hand side of nightdress) in 27 and 32, you can clearly see that it is different, and there is no way on gods green earth, or in a month of sunday's you can claim that the bloodstain in question only appears to be different because of the angle that the photograph was taken in - gun was moved, nightdress was adjusted, end of story...
Not only was gun moved, but nightdress was also moved - in order to adjust nightdress, the gun would have to be moved...
-
Sorry, once both of you have tried laying something resembling a gun from your groin, to the right hand side of your chest, and then tried to get it to touch the left hand side of your neck I'll start listening.
-
Sorry, once both of you have tried laying something resembling a gun from your groin, to the right hand side of your chest, and then tried to get it to touch the left hand side of your neck I'll start listening.
That part of your argument is correct in my opinion , but you can not cut across the necklace in one photo and not in another from the angle the photos are taken , which is above SC !!
-
I am a very experienced photographer, who specializes in using angles and shade and light to produce and create rather unusual photographs, you might say the techniques I use border on special effects by just using the camera settings, angle photograph is taken from, and to a certain extent manipulation of shade, light and dark - with this in mind, I know what I am talking about when I say the rifles barrel as shown in 27 is resting against Sheila's neck / throat, but in 32 it is not. You are seeking to rely upon only one feature (angle) to try and promote the idea that the rifles barrel is not actually resting upon or against Sheila's neck / throat, but you cannot do that by just relying upon angle alone, there are other features which you choose to ignore which I have tried to bring to your attention...
Besides, you have not yet seen photographs 26, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 33, which were photographs taken at the scene of Sheila, from different angles which confirm that police moved the rifle from the body and replaced it, so until you see those you are only speculating by a reliance upon one feature (angle) to try and wrongly promote the suggestion that the rifles barrel in 27 is not resting against Sheila's neck...
You are wrong...
-
That part of your argument is correct in my opinion , but you can not cut across the necklace in one photo and not in another from the angle the photos are taken , which is above SC !!
The necklace is several inches behind and below the barrel, so of course it is going to appear to move in relation to the barrel as the angle changes.
Mike, forget all of your photographic experience and lay on the floor with a stick (remember to suck your belly in).
-
If the ball is in the air you cannot tell whether it has crossed the line unless you are on the line.
To be honest, this theory is so easily disproven it's not worth debating. Believe the gun has moved if you want to.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Soccer/New-calls-for-video-refereeing-as-linesmans-error-robs-Spurs/2005/01/05/1104832177121.html
-
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Soccer/New-calls-for-video-refereeing-as-linesmans-error-robs-Spurs/2005/01/05/1104832177121.html
That photo illustrates my point perfectly. You cannot actually tell from the photo whether the ball is on the ground a foot the other side of the line, in the air directly above the line, or in the air the pitch side of the line. Can you not see that?
-
That photo illustrates my point perfectly. You cannot actually tell from the photo whether the ball is on the ground a foot the other side of the line, in the air directly above the line, or in the air the pitch side of the line. Can you not see that?
The point is you can see the line/necklace clearly , now from an angle high you will always be able to see the line/necklace , you now show us a line broken from above in one photo and not in another photo from above , as is the case with SC !!
-
Using your angle theory, to try and explain how the barrel of the rifle appears to be resting against Sheila's neck, you would have to be lower down and closer to the body to displace the position of the end of the barrel higher up ( creating a sort of optical illusion if you like), but the lower you go down the bigger the gap between the body and the rifles barrel (which is not evident in photograph 27, but is shown in photograph 32) would show up. Similarly, your angle theory does not take into account the dramatic change in the shape and positioning of the bloodstain situated top right of Sheila's nightdress? Since, if you are going lower down so that you can create the impression that the end of the rifles barrel is higher up on the body, you would also be altering what you could see of the aforementioned bloodstain in 27. In my view, you would see slightly less of it, not more of it, and the characteristics of the actual stain would not alter to such an extent as it appears to have done when you compare 27 to 32? In your explanation you only rely upon angle, but I have already pointed put that the position and characteristics of the shadow along the full length of the guns barrel is consistent with the barrel resting against Sheila's neck / throat in 27, and it is consistent in 32 with the barrel not resting against her body where the end of the barrel rises up away from the body - you need to add to this the shape and position of the bloodstain on the upper nightdress...
Police moved gun its as simple as that, not only that but in one breath police say nobody touched or moved anything except Sheila's hand so that PC Bird could photograph a bloodstain on the front lower nightdress being worn by Sheila, but in the next breath DI "Ron" Cook is claiming he removed the rifle and placed it against the bedroom window where PC Bird took a photograph of it from the vantage point of the middle landing on the main stairs. So, depending upon which version of police events you choose to believe, they didn't move it, they moved it, and all this was taking place whilst PC Bird was taking his pictures of Sheila in the main bedroom. Still to be fathomed out, is who replaced the rifle which Cook had removed from Sheila's body and placed it against the bedroom window, who put it back on the body, to enable PS Woodcock to be able to remove it again from Sheila's body at 11;10am, to make it safe?
If Cook removed the rifle earlier, and put it against the bedroom window and Bird took a picture of the rifle there (23) from the vantage point of the middle landing, which Bird says was a photograph he took after his first session in the main bedroom, how could 27 and 32 have been taken before 23 with the rifle leaning against the bedroom window? So, if we take PC Birds trial testimony that he took photograph 23 (rifle leaning against window) before 27 and 32, it can only mean that somebody replaced the rifle atop Sheila's body in different positions as at 27 and 32, to try and show how Sheila could have shot herself (or not) with the rifle in the photographs?
Which came first do you think:-
Photograph 23?
photograph 27?
photograph 32?
If 23 was taken first, rifle was not on the body, until 27 and then 32...
-
The point is you can see the line/necklace clearly , now from an angle high you will always be able to see the line/necklace , you now show us a line broken from above in one photo and not in another photo from above , as is the case with SC !!
I disagree, the photographer is standing to one side, and moves to another position to one side. As he moves towards Sheila's head the necklace becomes visible because it is actually several inches below and to the side of the barrel. I wish you'd just do the experiment.
-
I disagree, the photographer is standing to one side, and moves to another position to one side. As he moves towards Sheila's head the necklace becomes visible because it is actually several inches below and to the side of the barrel. I wish you'd just do the experiment.
The necklace can not become visible from above in one photo and then not in another photo from above , is the camera man looking down in both photo's ? Post us a photo from your experiment showing what you claim !!
-
I disagree, the photographer is standing to one side, and moves to another position to one side. As he moves towards Sheila's head the necklace becomes visible because it is actually several inches below and to the side of the barrel. I wish you'd just do the experiment.
For this explanation to be true, the shadow which runs along the full length of the barrel against the body would be different, but it is not. What you have got is use of a flashlight on the camera which produces the necessary shadow feature which you are trying to ignore because you know or must know that any shadow cast along that part of the rifle which is not in contact with the body would show up and deviate in a different direction than the main body of shadow along the length of the rifles barrel which is resting against the body...
-
I know what you mean about angles, but in this case the rifle has been moved. The difference is so vast. Look at the shadows...
Morning all. :) :) :)
-
That photo illustrates my point perfectly. You cannot actually tell from the photo whether the ball is on the ground a foot the other side of the line, in the air directly above the line, or in the air the pitch side of the line. Can you not see that?
You are wrong again, you can clearly see that the ball has / did cross the line, because of reference to the shape, characteristics and positioning of the shadow bottom right of ball, which is consistent with the shadow position produced from the goalkeeper - shadow of ball and shadow from player are consist with each other, and prove the ball was close to the ground, and over the goal line...
-
Using your angle theory, to try and explain how the barrel of the rifle appears to be resting against Sheila's neck, you would have to be lower down and closer to the body to displace the position of the end of the barrel higher up ( creating a sort of optical illusion if you like), but the lower you go down the bigger the gap between the body and the rifles barrel (which is not evident in photograph 27, but is shown in photograph 32) would show up. Similarly, your angle theory does not take into account the dramatic change in the shape and positioning of the bloodstain situated top right of Sheila's nightdress? Since, if you are going lower down so that you can create the impression that the end of the rifles barrel is higher up on the body, you would also be altering what you could see of the aforementioned bloodstain in 27. In my view, you would see slightly less of it, not more of it, and the characteristics of the actual stain would not alter to such an extent as it appears to have done when you compare 27 to 32? In your explanation you only rely upon angle, but I have already pointed put that the position and characteristics of the shadow along the full length of the guns barrel is consistent with the barrel resting against Sheila's neck / throat in 27, and it is consistent in 32 with the barrel not resting against her body where the end of the barrel rises up away from the body - you need to add to this the shape and position of the bloodstain on the upper nightdress...
Police moved gun its as simple as that, not only that but in one breath police say nobody touched or moved anything except Sheila's hand so that PC Bird could photograph a bloodstain on the front lower nightdress being worn by Sheila, but in the next breath DI "Ron" Cook is claiming he removed the rifle and placed it against the bedroom window where PC Bird took a photograph of it from the vantage point of the middle landing on the main stairs. So, depending upon which version of police events you choose to believe, they didn't move it, they moved it, and all this was taking place whilst PC Bird was taking his pictures of Sheila in the main bedroom. Still to be fathomed out, is who replaced the rifle which Cook had removed from Sheila's body and placed it against the bedroom window, who put it back on the body, to enable PS Woodcock to be able to remove it again from Sheila's body at 11;10am, to make it safe?
If Cook removed the rifle earlier, and put it against the bedroom window and Bird took a picture of the rifle there (23) from the vantage point of the middle landing, which Bird says was a photograph he took after his first session in the main bedroom, how could 27 and 32 have been taken before 23 with the rifle leaning against the bedroom window? So, if we take PC Birds trial testimony that he took photograph 23 (rifle leaning against window) before 27 and 32, it can only mean that somebody replaced the rifle atop Sheila's body in different positions as at 27 and 32, to try and show how Sheila could have shot herself (or not) with the rifle in the photographs?
Which came first do you think:-
Photograph 23?
photograph 27?
photograph 32?
If 23 was taken first, rifle was not on the body, until 27 and then 32...
I've said all I have to say about the position of the rifle in 27 and 32 - you can either try it for yourself, or not.
With regards the stain, the same effect applies. The stain is forshortened in 27 by the angle. It still extends from her shoulder to her elbow, but just as the barrel is forshortened, so is her upper arm.
As I said, believe the gun has been moved between those two photos if you want to, but as a theory it's going nowhere because it's easily disproven.
-
I disagree, the photographer is standing to one side, and moves to another position to one side. As he moves towards Sheila's head the necklace becomes visible because it is actually several inches below and to the side of the barrel. I wish you'd just do the experiment.
Photographer would have to move to one side (leftwards and lower down) in order to cast or give the impression that the position of the guns barrel was higher up the body, which would produce less of a view of the bloodstain on the upper right of nightdress - but it does not. It would also show a dramatic difference in / of the shadow cast by that part of the rifles barrel which was / is not in contact with the body, or as in this case against Sheila's neck /throat. No such deviation in the shadow is produced in 27, which proves and establishes that you are incorrect in your belief that the rifles barrel was not, is not resting against Sheila's neck / throat...
-
I've said all I have to say about the position of the rifle in 27 and 32 - you can either try it for yourself, or not.
With regards the stain, the same effect applies. The stain is forshortened in 27 by the angle. It still extends from her shoulder to her elbow, but just as the barrel is forshortened, so is her upper arm.
As I said, believe the gun has been moved between those two photos if you want to, but as a theory it's going nowhere because it's easily disproven.
It's not easily disproved in your favour on this occasion I am afraid. Barrel of rifle is resting against Sheila's throat / neck in 27, but not in 32, and missing from the body altogether in 26 - I wonder why that is? I suppose your going to try to suggest it is /was missing in 26 because of the angle the photographer took that picture?
-
It's not easily disproved in your favour on this occasion I am afraid. Barrel of rifle is resting against Sheila's throat / neck in 27, but not in 32, and missing from the body altogether in 26 - I wonder why that is? I suppose your going to try to suggest it is /was missing in 26 because of the angle the photographer took that picture?
Lets take it a step further...
Jeremy must have removed it in the interim period whilst he was busily stage managing the scene despite the fact he was at home in his cottage at 9 Head Street at the time giving a witness statement to that crook of a police officer "Stan" the man (I can rewrite my notebook at any time) Jones - yeah, we'll just blame Jeremy for it all, he stage managed everything and fooled the police into thinking Sheila took her own life, and everything else the police got up to in this investigation. He's a really special talent is Jeremy, capable of doing everything that the police were / are responsible for doing...
-
Please post picture 26, otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about.
-
The difference is so vast.
It's not specsavers the Bridget needs...it's jam jars. She'll end up looking like Olive from On the Buses at this rate. :D
The beveled end of the rifle barrel is clearly in a completely different position in the shots. It could not be clearer. No amount of angle experimentation with a broom stick will make any difference whatsoever. Bridget, sometimes your absolute stubbornness is your downfall. It actually undermines your other good work at keeping us 'innocents' on a tight leash.
-
It's not specsavers the Bridget needs...it's jam jars. She'll end up looking like Olive from On the Buses at this rate. :D
The beveled end of the rifle barrel is clearly in a completely different position in the shots. It could not be clearer. No amount of angle experimentation with a broom stick will make any difference whatsoever. Bridget, sometimes your absolute stubbornness is your downfall. It actually undermines your other good work at keeping us 'innocents' on a tight leash.
Feel free to continue this particular wild goose chase then, it's no skin off my nose. :)
-
Please post picture 26, otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about.
That is a very good point, if you don't get to see photograph 26, you have no idea what I am talking about?
Well, imagine how Jeremy and his legal team must have felt or be feeling because they did not get to see photograph 26 before or during his trial in October 1986, nor did the jury which tried this matter, nor did the court of appeal which dealt with the failed appeal of 2002...
But they did get to see 23...
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4541;image)
"So, did PC Bird, take 23 before 27 and 32"?
-
Morning Bridget are they implying your eyesight is not good :) ;) ;)
-
That is a very good point, if you don't get to see photograph 26, you have no idea what I am talking about?
Well, imagine how Jeremy and his legal team must have felt or be feeling because they did not get to see photograph 26 before or during his trial in October 1986, nor did the jury which tried this matter, nor did the court of appeal which dealt with the failed appeal of 2002...
But they did get to see 23...
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4541;image)
Please post picture 26.Morning Bridget are they implying your eyesight is not good :) ;) ;)
Morning Susan :), I think this has more to do with awareness of spatial relationships than eyesight, but if that's what floats their boat...
-
I know one thing,,that if a schizophrenic approached me and told me he/she wanted their children dead,,,as was told to the psychiatrist at St Andrews Hospital,, by Sheila,,,,I wouldn't have just sat back making notes.! Sheila had also stated to him/her that her boys were the " devils children ". Usual spiel.
This was in the March of that same year,,1985.
I'm sorry,,folks,,but had I been the doctor/psychiatrist and a sick person also spoke about one of the children who was going to rape and murder her,,,I'd have sectioned her there and then and avoided the terrible tragedy that happened.
Never underestimate the threats of a schizophrenic.
The biggest problem back then was the fact that nobody knew anything at all about the behaviour nor actions of a person so very ill.
-
See case related photos ms11.jpg and ms 12.jp for comparison.
-
I've said all I have to say about the position of the rifle in 27 and 32 - you can either try it for yourself, or not.
With regards the stain, the same effect applies. The stain is forshortened in 27 by the angle. It still extends from her shoulder to her elbow, but just as the barrel is forshortened, so is her upper arm.
As I said, believe the gun has been moved between those two photos if you want to, but as a theory it's going nowhere because it's easily disproven.
I don't think you understand about the significance of shadows in relation to any item or article that is being photographed, dependant upon the angle or vantage point a photograph is being taken from? Here are a few examples of what I am talking about by reference to some of the other crime scene photographs taken as part of this investigation:-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4541;image)(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4559;image)(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4556;image)(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4086;image)(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4080;image)(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4315;image)
-
Grahame hope you are the Grahame we all love. :)
-
The significance of the contents of these important images (23, 27 and 32 - and others taken around the same time) was never aired in the presence of the jury because police are / were responsible for a huge deception concerning how many photographs had been taken at the scene (whf)...
If that deception had been known about at the time the trial got under way, the case against Jeremy would almost certainly have been thrown out of court, and a number of police officers would have been arrested and charged with falsifying evidence, perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice...
-
The significance of the contents of these important images (23, 27 and 32 - and others taken around the same time) was never aired in the presence of the jury because police are / were responsible for a huge deception concerning how many photographs had been taken at the scene (whf)...
If that deception had been known about at the time the trial got under way, the case against Jeremy would almost certainly have been thrown out of court, and a number of police officers would have been arrested and charged with falsifying evidence, perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice...
It is still possible for that to happen...
-
I know one thing,,that if a schizophrenic approached me and told me he/she wanted their children dead,,,as was told to the psychiatrist at St Andrews Hospital,, by Sheila,,,,
That's not what the psychiatrist said at all. His statements are in the archive if you want to read them.
-
Bridget , do you see a shadow below the gun and above the necklace ?
-
Now...
Just so some of you do not get carried way and start believing in the nonsense being talked about in recent posts concerning the position of the guns barrel against Sheila's neck or otherwise, I am going to take the liberty of posting a schedule relating to photographs taken by PC Bird, which lists photographs 23, 27 and 32:-
"Schedule taken from City of London (COLP) investigation (1991 - 92)"...
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2345.0;attach=11912;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2345.0;attach=11913;image)
Viewers will note, that photograph 23 (taken from middle landing of main stairs) shows rifle to be off the body and leaning up against the bedroom window, as stated by DI "Ron" Cook, who says he removed rifle from Sheila's body and placed it there, after PC Birds first session inside the bedroom"...
Now, this is all well and good, but how then did the rifle manage to appear back atop Sheila's body in time for PC Bird to photograph the rifle back there, as shown in 27 and 32?
"If the rifle had been removed from atop Shela's body by "Ron" Cook, as of the time photograph 23 was taken by PC Bird from the vantage point of the middle landing (23) then of course the rifle could not be on Sheila's body at that time. It had to be replaced back onto her body in order for PC Bird to take further pictures, as of 27 and 32...
Hence, why in photograph 26 there was no rifle photographed at all on Sheila's body...
-
That's not what the psychiatrist said at all. His statements are in the archive if you want to read them.
Hi Bridget. I was just referring to what Sheila had been telling the psychiatrist,,,and would have assumed that notes had been taken of what was told. I haven't looked at what the psychiatrist actually said.
-
Hi Bridget. I was just referring to what Sheila had been telling the psychiatrist,,,and would have assumed that notes had been taken of what was told. I haven't looked at what the psychiatrist actually said.
Ok, well how would you know what Sheila had said to her psychiatrist without looking at his statements?
-
Now...
Just so some of you do not get carried way and start believing in the nonsense being talked about in recent posts concerning the position of the guns barrel against Sheila's neck or otherwise, I am going to take the liberty of posting a schedule relating to photographs taken by PC Bird, which lists photographs 23, 27 and 32:-
"Schedule taken from City of London (COLP) investigation (1991 - 92)"...
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2345.0;attach=11912;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2345.0;attach=11913;image)
Viewers will note, that photograph 23 (taken from middle landing of main stairs) shows rifle to be off the body and leaning up against the bedroom window, as stated by DI "Ron" Cook, who says he removed rifle from Sheila's body and placed it there, after PC Birds first session inside the bedroom"...
Now, this is all well and good, but how then did the rifle manage to appear back atop Sheila's body in time for PC Bird to photograph the rifle back there, as shown in 27 and 32?
I am interested in photo 23....Is this the photo that we see with the rifle leaned against the window? If so then the SOCO'S have got it totally incorrect. Because they said they removed the rifle after the photo's were taken, they made the gun safe and removed it from Sheila's body. Then whilst Bird exited the main bedroom he took the photo of the middle landing with rifle seen at the window. Have I got this right or wrong????????? ??? ??? ??? :-\
-
Bridget , do you see a shadow below the gun and above the necklace ?
On which photo Jon?
-
Now...
Just so some of you do not get carried way and start believing in the nonsense being talked about in recent posts concerning the position of the guns barrel against Sheila's neck or otherwise, I am going to take the liberty of posting a schedule relating to photographs taken by PC Bird, which lists photographs 23, 27 and 32:-
"Schedule taken from City of London (COLP) investigation (1991 - 92)"...
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2345.0;attach=11912;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2345.0;attach=11913;image)
Viewers will note, that photograph 23 (taken from middle landing of main stairs) shows rifle to be off the body and leaning up against the bedroom window, as stated by DI "Ron" Cook, who says he removed rifle from Sheila's body and placed it there, after PC Birds first session inside the bedroom"...
Now, this is all well and good, but how then did the rifle manage to appear back atop Sheila's body in time for PC Bird to photograph the rifle back there, as shown in 27 and 32?
"If the rifle had been removed from atop Shela's body by "Ron" Cook, as of the time photograph 23 was taken by PC Bird from the vantage point of the middle landing (23) then of course the rifle could not be on Sheila's body at that time. It had to be replaced back onto her body in order for PC Bird to take further pictures, as of 27 and 32...
Hence, why in photograph 26 there was no rifle photographed at all on Sheila's body...
According to this schedule, PC Bird did not take any photographs of Sheila with the rifle upon her body until after he took photograph 23, which shows the rifle leaning up against the bedroom window - so, the jury were not shown any photographs of the rifle on atop of Sheila's body until it had been replaced there by the police at some point after photographs 23 had been taken? This means that any photographs which were shown or made available to the jury which had the rifle atop her body, were photographs taken of the stage managed body of Sheila as stage managed by the police, not by anyone else, not by Jeremy, or any as yet unidentified killer...
Jury were therefore fooled into accepting the prosecutions claim that Jeremy had stage managed Sheila's body with the rifle atop it, as shown in the photographs made available to the jury, when all along PC Bird took no photographs of the rifle atiop Sheila;'s body, until after the rifle was taken from the bedroom window and placed onto her body on the floor as in 27 and 32...
What a scandalous state of affairs...
-
Now...
Just so some of you do not get carried way and start believing in the nonsense being talked about in recent posts concerning the position of the guns barrel against Sheila's neck or otherwise, I am going to take the liberty of posting a schedule relating to photographs taken by PC Bird, which lists photographs 23, 27 and 32:-
"Schedule taken from City of London (COLP) investigation (1991 - 92)"...
Viewers will note, that photograph 23 (taken from middle landing of main stairs) shows rifle to be off the body and leaning up against the bedroom window, as stated by DI "Ron" Cook, who says he removed rifle from Sheila's body and placed it there, after PC Birds first session inside the bedroom"...
Now, this is all well and good, but how then did the rifle manage to appear back atop Sheila's body in time for PC Bird to photograph the rifle back there, as shown in 27 and 32?
"If the rifle had been removed from atop Shela's body by "Ron" Cook, as of the time photograph 23 was taken by PC Bird from the vantage point of the middle landing (23) then of course the rifle could not be on Sheila's body at that time. It had to be replaced back onto her body in order for PC Bird to take further pictures, as of 27 and 32...
Hence, why in photograph 26 there was no rifle photographed at all on Sheila's body...
Thanks for posting that, it confirms that the reference numbers on photos 27 and 32 are court album reference numbers, and that therefore the 'wet blood' picture which is a blow up from 27 was not an undisclosed photo.
-
I am interested in photo 23....Is this the photo that we see with the rifle leaned against the window? If so then the SOCO'S have got it totally incorrect. Because they said they removed the rifle after the photo's were taken, they made the gun safe and removed it from Sheila's body. Then whilst Bird exited the main bedroom he took the photo of the middle landing with rifle seen at the window. Have I got this right or wrong????????? ??? ??? ??? :-\
"Bingo"...
You have hit the nail on the head, so to speak...
They took pictures of the rifle on the body of Sheila Caffell, in the different positions, after PC Bird took picture 23 from the vantage point of the middle landing...
Jury were deliberately and falsely misled regarding these matters...
Convictions can't be safe, because of this very reason alone...
-
Ok, well how would you know what Sheila had said to her psychiatrist without looking at his statements?
Bridget,,I had notes from another source.
-
Bridget,,I had notes from another source.
What source?
-
"Bingo"...
You have hit the nail on the head, so to speak...
They took pictures of the rifle on the body of Sheila Caffell, in the different positions, after PC Bird took picture 23 from the vantage point of the middle landing...
Jury were deliberately and falsely misled regarding these matters...
Convictions can't be safe, because of this very reason alone...
Mike,None of this was mentioned to the jury in 1986. The fact that Sheilas' bed hadn't been slept in,,,crime scene photos' showing that her body along with the gun,had been moved while photos' were being taken. No,,the conviction wasn't safe at all.
-
Bridget,,I had notes from another source.
Morning Lookout :D :D :D :D Are you OK? Whats the weather like your way...Sunny and windy here...No sign of any heated energy...lol 8) 8) 8) 8)
-
"Bingo"...
You have hit the nail on the head, so to speak...
They took pictures of the rifle on the body of Sheila Caffell, in the different positions, after PC Bird took picture 23 from the vantage point of the middle landing...
Jury were deliberately and falsely misled regarding these matters...
Convictions can't be safe, because of this very reason alone...
We know Cook (the crook) removed the rifle from the body and placed it at the bedroom window in time for PC Bird to photograph it there, as shown in 23, but who the hell put it back on the body, in time for Bird to photograph it there in different positions, as shown in 27 and 32? Worse still - why were the jury wrongly told that the images of 27 and 32 showed exactky how the body of Sheila had been found with rifle and bible in attendance of the body, and that no-one moved or touched anything at all, until after PC Bird took all his photographs in the bedroom. However, we now know this not to be true, because the rifle was taken from the bedroom window and put back onto Sheila;'s body, after 23 was taken and police stage managed Sheila's body, took photographs 27 and 32 and presented this evidence to the court as evidence that Jeremy was responsible for stage managing Sheila's body...
What a fucking conspiracy these bastards have got away with for all these years...
My mate Jeremy has been in prison for all these years, when all along the police stage managed his sisters body, after they put the rifle onto her body, from the bedroom window (23) and the police refuse to provide any details about who put the rifle onto her body after photograph 23 was taken? Why do the police deliberately miss that bit out, why do they refuse to talk about or deal with who put the rifle back onto Sheila's body after photograph 23 was taken?
They refuse to talk about it, because that was the point / stage that a policeman took possession of the rifle from its position (23) of leaning up against the bedroom window, and placed it upon her body with the muzzle of the rifles barrel in different positions against her throat / neck, and her hands being applied around, or upon the trigger mechanism, shot Sheila under the chin and killed her...
Then...
PC Bird took pictures 27 and 32...
-
Morning Lookout :D :D :D :D Are you OK? Whats the weather like your way...Sunny and windy here...No sign of any heated energy...lol 8) 8) 8) 8)
Morning Patti. Pretty close here, and still,,so we'll probably have a volley of a storm with no wind to take it away. Fabulously sunny first thing,as I had brekkie outside. Hey ho,it hasn't lasted.
Apart from that,,all's well,,hope you are.
-
Thanks for posting that, it confirms that the reference numbers on photos 27 and 32 are court album reference numbers, and that therefore the 'wet blood' picture which is a blow up from 27 was not an undisclosed photo.
No...
You are wrong again, the wet blood picture (which you now prefer to call it) was not disclosed as part of the court album - this image was contained in the other top secret album, which has the title " Senior Investigating Officers album", consisting of 581 pictures. Defence nor the court which tried these matters had access or knowledge of the existence of such another (third) album of photographs. The large blown up image of "the wet looking blood" was part of the "senior investigating officers album", which included other "blown up images" of wounds, and other body parts of victims, within it...
Putting this to one side for the moment, it should be clear to all and sundry that the court album which was presented for use by the jury contained images where the police had taken the rifle from the bedroom window (23) and placed it onto the body of Sheila (27 and 32) in different positions, and blamed Jeremy for doing that which the police themselves had done, and are responsible for doing, so that they could convict Jeremy for the murders, on the basis that he killed everyone including Sheila, and that he had stage managed Sheila's body to make it look like or appear as though she had taken her own life, when it turns out it was not him, and could not have been him who shot and killed Sheila, it was the police who did what they did, and they blamed Jeremy for doing what they did...
-
On which photo Jon?
27
-
You can put it to one side for as long as you like, but there's no getting away from the fact that the 'wet blood' picture is a blow up from picture 27, and picture 27 was in the court album.
Do you have the transcript of Bird's court evidence? Otherwise I don't see how you can know that picture 23 was taken before pictures 27 and 32. The index is clearly not in chronological order.
-
No...
You are wrong again, the wet blood picture (which you now prefer to call it) was not disclosed as part of the court album - this image was contained in the other top secret album, which has the title " Senior Investigating Officers album", consisting of 581 pictures. Defence nor the court which tried these matters had access or knowledge of the existence of such another (third) album of photographs. The large blown up image of "the wet looking blood" was part of the "senior investigating officers album", which included other "blown up images" of wounds, and other body parts of victims, within it...
Putting this to one side for the moment, it should be clear to all and sundry that the court album which was presented for use by the jury contained images where the police had taken the rifle from the bedroom window (23) and placed it onto the body of Sheila (27 and 32) in different positions, and blamed Jeremy for doing that which the police themselves had done, and are responsible for doing, so that they could convict Jeremy for the murders, on the basis that he killed everyone including Sheila, and that he had stage managed Sheila's body to make it look like or appear as though she had taken her own life, when it turns out it was not him, and could not have been him who shot and killed Sheila, it was the police who did what they did, and they blamed Jeremy for doing what they did...
Well, now that we know the truth about what actually took place, how can these convictions be regarded as being safe, and not only that / this, how can a man who was / has been wrongly convicted of these awful murders, by a reliance upon such tainted evidence, be told that he has to spend the rest of his natural life in prison, when all along a gang of corrupted police officers, and CPS officials, have known all along that police have, and did frame Jeremy Bamber for these murders?
They framed him for these murders, nothing could be any clearer, or more certain...
-
Bridget , do you see a shadow below the gun and above the necklace ?
I see what could be a shadow on Sheila's neck running along the bottom side of the barrel.
-
I see what could be a shadow on Sheila's neck running along the bottom side of the barrel.
Above the necklace ?
-
Above the necklace ?
When you say above, do you mean nearer to her chin? If so, yes.
-
You can put it to one side for as long as you like, but there's no getting away from the fact that the 'wet blood' picture is a blow up from picture 27, and picture 27 was in the court album.
Do you have the transcript of Bird's court evidence? Otherwise I don't see how you can know that picture 23 was taken before pictures 27 and 32. The index is clearly not in chronological order.
It is not a blow up of picture 27, as you put it, at least not in the sense that it has been duplicated from it as you are trying to suggest. PC Bird used a tripod when taking his pictures, and soon after a policeman shot and killed Sheila, by taking the rifle from the bedroom window (23) and placing it upon Sheila's body. PC Bird set up his camera on a tripod and photographed the wet looking blood image by zooming in on that particular area of her throat, and then he waited whilst the wet looking blood started to coagulate, and he took 27 zoomed out, which depicts the same blood as dried and coagulated - so that it appears as though the wet looking blood image was / is a blow up of photographs 27 but this is / was not strictly true and is not true...
It is all very well saying that the index is not in chronological order at this late stage, now that the jury have been fooled by its introduction, but what actually was needed was the full index of the senior investigating officers album (581) so that Bamber and his legal team, and the court which was trying the matter could work everything out for themselves instead of having matters thrust down their throats to be judged and taken into account in keeping with the prosecutions interpretation of events...
What a deception they pulled off, it really is an amazing feat of deception implemented (as it were) on a quite massive scale...
-
It is not a blow up of picture 27, as you put it, at least not in the sense that it has been duplicated from it as you are trying to suggest. PC Bird used a tripod when taking his pictures, and soon after a policeman shot and killed Sheila, by taking the rifle from the bedroom window (23) and placing it upon Sheila's body. PC Bird set up his camera on a tripod and photographed the wet looking blood image by zooming in on that particular area of her throat, and then he waiting whilst the blood started to coagulate and he took 27 zoomed out, which depicts the same blood as dried and coagulated - so that it appears as though the wet looking blood image was / is a blow up of photographs 27 but this is / was not strictly true and is not true...
If I had a hat I'd be taking it off to you now for posting the most contrived, speculative and entirely baseless theory I've seen in a long time. I would say ever, but there is some stiff competition.
-
If I had a hat I'd be taking it off to you now for posting the most contrived, speculative and entirely baseless theory I've seen in a long time. I would say ever, but there is some stiff competition.
You can scoff all you want to, but the fact of the matter is that even now, despite some 27 years or so having elapsed there is still no schedule relating to the sequence of events in which all 581 photographs which are contained in the "senior investigating officers album" were taken?
We have a schedule for all the 223 photographs taken in the so called (and wrongly named) "MASTER COPY ALBUM", and a corresponding schedule which shows the 50 photographs contained in the "COURT ALBUM", that were taken from the "MASTER COPY ALBUM", but we do not have a schedule for the sequence of events relating to the taking of the 581 pictures contained in the "SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM". Now in order to make any sense of the contents of the schedule for the " MASTER COPY ALBUM" (223) and the "COURT ALBUM" (50), you need do you not, a full schedule from the "SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM (581), so that you can work out the exact order that photographs contained in the "MASTER COPY ALBUM" were taken, and in what order by reference to the SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM (581) the 50 photographs which formed the "COURT ALBUM" were taken in, do you not agree?
-
If I had a hat I'd be taking it off to you now for posting the most contrived, speculative and entirely baseless theory I've seen in a long time. I would say ever, but there is some stiff competition.
C'mon,Bridget. Let's see you and your cohorts give us your,,koff,,reliable version of events.
Surely you've got to give Mike some credit for his outstanding detective work,,,some of which is glaringly obvious that it's been a well cobbled job done by supposedly trained professionals.
-
C'mon,Bridget. Let's see you and your cohorts give us your,,koff,,reliable version of events.
Surely you've got to give Mike some credit for his outstanding detective work,,,some of which is glaringly obvious that it's been a well cobbled job done by supposedly trained professionals.
I'll give him credit for his imagination.
-
You can scoff all you want to, but the fact of the matter is that even now, despite some 27 years or so having elapsed there is still no schedule relating to the sequence of events in which all 581 photographs which are contained in the "senior investigating officers album" were taken?
We have a schedule for all the 223 photographs taken in the so called (and wrongly named) "MASTER COPY ALBUM", and a corresponding schedule which shows the 50 photographs contained in the "COURT ALBUM", that were taken from the "MASTER COPY ALBUM", but we do not have a schedule for the sequence of events relating to the taking of the 581 pictures contained in the "SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM". Now in order to make any sense of the contents of the schedule for the " MASTER COPY ALBUM" (223) and the "COURT ALBUM" (50), you need do you not, a full schedule from the "SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM (581), so that you can work out the exact order that photographs contained in the "MASTER COPY ALBUM" were taken, and in what order by reference to the SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM (581) the 50 photographs which formed the "COURT ALBUM" were taken in, do you not agree?
Based on the contents of the "COURT ALBUM" (50), it appears on the face of its contents that the rifle was not photographed atop Sheila's body (27 and 32) until after PC Bird photographed the rifle against the bedroom window at 23 - this is / was the evidence that the jury were being shown, and upon which they had to make their judgement, and arrive at a verdict upon. In this regard they were deceived, do you not agree? they were deceived because the content of the "COURT ALBUM (50) was a deception, its contents did not reflect the exact order that the photographs had been, or were taken in? But how could the jury know this / that, if they did not have access to the schedule for the "MASTER COPY ALBUM" (223), or as the case may be, access to a copy of a schedule for the "SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM" (581)?
-
Based on the contents of the "COURT ALBUM" (50), it appears on the face of its contents that the rifle was not photographed atop Sheila's body (27 and 32) until after PC Bird photographed the rifle against the bedroom window at 23 - this is / was the evidence that the jury were being shown, and upon which they had to make their judgement, and arrive at a verdict upon. In this regard they were deceived, do you not agree? they were deceived because the content of the "COURT ALBUM (50) was a deception, its contents did not reflect the exact order that the photographs had been, or were taken in? But how could the jury know this / that, if they did not have access to the schedule for the "MASTER COPY ALBUM" (223), or as the case may be, access to a copy of a schedule for the "SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM" (581)?
Lets get the facts right...
At the time of Jeremy Bambers trial in October 1986, there was no schedule exhibited which illustrated the sequence of events that all 223 photographs contained in the wrongly named "MASTER COPY ALBUM", nor any corresponding schedule exhibited showing which of the 50 "COURT ALBUM" photographs, were taken in, by reference tio the aforementioned "SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM" (581)?
-
Based on the contents of the "COURT ALBUM" (50), it appears on the face of its contents that the rifle was not photographed atop Sheila's body (27 and 32) until after PC Bird photographed the rifle against the bedroom window at 23 - this is / was the evidence that the jury were being shown, and which they had to make their judgement, and arrive at a verdict upon. In this regard they were deceived, do you niot agree? they were deceived because the content of the "COURT ALBUM (50) was a deception, its contents did not reflect the exact order that the photographs had been, or were taken in? But how could the jury know this / that, if they did not have access to the schedule for the "MASTER COPY ALBUM" (223), or as the case may be, access to a copy of a schedule for the "SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM" (581)?
Unless you have a transcript of Bird's evidence it is impossible to say what the jury were told with regards the order of the photographs. Given that the photo of the rifle in the window is numbered 23, your claim that photo 26 shows Sheila without the rifle, and then 27 and 32 show her with it, without further explanation the jury will have assumed that the rifle was indeed taken off of her body and then returned to it prior to photos 27 and 32 being taken. So no disadvantage to Jeremy there then.
-
Lets get the facts right...
At the time of Jeremy Bambers trial in October 1986, there was no schedule exhibited which illustrated the sequence of events that all 223 photographs contained in the wrongly named "MASTER COPY ALBUM", nor any corresponding schedule exhibited showing which of the 50 "COURT ALBUM" photographs, were taken in, by reference tio the aforementioned "SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM" (581)?
Since then of course, in 1991 COLP produced evidence of a schedule which purports to show the sequence of events relating to the taking of the 50 "COURT ALBUM" photographs, when compared against the content of the so called (wrongly named) "MASTER COPY ALBUM" (223)...
Too late for the jury to get any benefit from its contents, "too late by five years", I am afraid...
-
Unless you have a transcript of Bird's evidence it is impossible to say what the jury were told with regards the order of the photographs. Given that the photo of the rifle in the window is numbered 23, your claim that photo 26 shows Sheila without the rifle, and then 27 and 32 show her with it, without further explanation the jury will have assumed that the rifle was indeed taken off of her body and then returned to it prior to photos 27 and 32 being taken. So no disadvantage to Jeremy there then.
AAh...
Wrong again - jury were given an untruthful explanation by PC Bird, an untruthful explanation he was able to give because he knew that he had created a false schedule purporting to relate to a "MASTER COPY ALBUM", which contained all the photographs taken in connection with this investigation (223)...
Good old PC Bird, the lying bastard...
Contents of the "COURT ALBUM" (50) and contents of the "MASTER COPY ALBUM" (223) were both out of sequence when compared to the actual sequence of events relating to when each of the 581 pictures were / had been taken relating to the " SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM" - in other words a deception introduced by PC Bird, that /which was further compounded by another deception, because the existence of the actual contents of the "SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM" (581) was deliberately and purposefully withheld, and not mentioned, so that what took place at the scene involving how Sheila Caffell came to die, (she was shot by a police officer under the chin) could not possibly be discovered by anyone, before the conclusion of trial proceedings...
-
AAh...
Wrong again - jury were given an untruthful explanation by PC Bird, an untruthful explanation he was able to give because he knew that he had created a false schedule purporting to relate to a "MASTER COPY ALBUM", which contained all the photographs taken in connection with this investigation (223)...
Good old PC Bird, the lying bastard...
Contents of the "COURT ALBUM" (50) and contents of the "MASTER COPY ALBUM" (223) were both out of sequence when compared to the actual sequence of events relating to when each of the 581 pictures were / had been taken relating to the " SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM" - in other words a deception introduced by PC Bird, that /which was further compounded by another deception, because the existence of the actual contents of the "SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM" (581) was deliberately and purposefully withheld, and not mentioned, so that what took place at the scene involving how Sheila Caffell came to die, (she was shot by a police officer under the chin) could not possibly be discovered by anyone, before the conclusion of trial proceedings...
We are some 27 years or so down the road, and still Essex police, refuse to produce such a schedule, which relates to the sequence of events regarding the taking or reproduction of enlargements of the 581 pictures that form part and parcel of the "SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM"...
Wonder what they are scared of?
-
Either you have a transcript of Bird's evidence or you don't. If you don't you can't possibly know what he said. If you do, post it.
-
Either you have a transcript of Bird's evidence or you don't. If you don't you can't possibly know what he said. If you do, post it.
I will post what I want, when I want - I don't tell you or anybody what to post, or when to post, you should learn to be more patient...
In the meantime, here are extracts of the so called schedule which PC Bird produced for the COLP investigation (1991), which shows the date when each of the 50 "COURT ALBUM" photographs were taken:-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2286.0;attach=12923;image)
"To be borne in mind, is that the jury nor Jeremy and his legal team, or the court itself, did not receive the benefit of this, at the time of the trial in October 1986"...
-
Feel free to continue this particular wild goose chase then, it's no skin off my nose. :)
There is no point in arguing with a member who takes up an absurd immovable position on an aspect of the case. Being obdurate in this way might sometimes work to your advantage but I can assure you, it hasn't worked for you yesterday or today. Even Velma from Scooby Doo could work this one out. It's got nowt to do with spatial awareness...
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-7nD92MX5TG0/T0DzziH7yyI/AAAAAAAAEW4/zNwYLfuhwBI)
-
There is no point in arguing with a member who takes up an absurd immovable position on an aspect of the case. Being obdurate in this way might sometimes work to your advantage but I can assure you, it hasn't worked for you yesterday or today. Even Velma from Scooby Doo could work this one out. It's got nowt to do with spatial awareness...
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
-
Photograph 26,a view of Sheila and June in the main bedroom.Would a photograph be able to take in the both of their bodies?They were quite far apart (opposite ends of the room).
-
You have no evidence that Sheila was shot by the Police, only that either the gun was moved or Sheila's hand was moved,you have no evidence that anyone entering the premises of White House Farm that morning heard a shot,it was DCI Taff Jones who as overall head of the investigation declared the crime to be four murders and a suicide and the lower ranks who were dissatisfied with that theory,there is no evidence that Sheila had gone berserk with a gun because no Police officer recollects talking exclusively to Ralph(Nevill) Bamber. There is no evidence of gun oil on Sheila's nightdress or evidence that she discharged a rifle 25 times,neither is there evidence of any physical exertion or sweat on her face from someone who had been in a fierce struggle with Nevill.
To counter this we have Jeremy's assertions to Julie that he must have a "mental problem" because he had no feelings at all towards the deceased,his assertion that Nevill put up a stronger struggle than expected as he fought for his life and in this fight a glove came off in the exchange.We have Julie telling us how Jeremy knew a way into the property avoiding the main thoroughfares through one of the downstairs windows,which he may well have left open before he left for the night on August 6.
-
steve I think if anyone had mental problems it was Julie. To identify the little twins and show no emotion only ask questions which I will not post up then saying she needed a ciggy. To share a bed with Jeremy a normal person would have the images of the little twins all the time. That is not normal behaviour I know you said love is blind but come on now steve not that blind. Also if she knew he was going to commit the murders she could have stopped it. Did she not wonder if she was going to be next. My impression of Julie is a cold calculating young woman who would have easily lead Jeremy astray and she had her eyes on the £'s sign.
-
Photograph 26,a view of Sheila and June in the main bedroom.Would a photograph be able to take in the both of their bodies?They were quite far apart (opposite ends of the room).
Aaagh...
on bed together I am afraid - you cottoned onto me so soon...
On the bed it is, together, exactly what DC Clarke / DS Jones, told Ann Eaton on morning of shootings...
-
Aaagh...
on bed together I am afraid - you cottoned onto me so soon...
On the bed it is, together, exactly what DC Clarke / DS Jones, told Ann Eaton on morning of shootings...
No rifle on body at this stage....
Oh gosh...
-
Aaagh...
on bed together I am afraid - you cottoned onto me so soon...
On the bed it is, together, exactly what DC Clarke / DS Jones, told Ann Eaton on morning of shootings...
:-X
-
Unless you have a transcript of Bird's evidence it is impossible to say what the jury were told with regards the order of the photographs. Given that the photo of the rifle in the window is numbered 23, your claim that photo 26 shows Sheila without the rifle, and then 27 and 32 show her with it, without further explanation the jury will have assumed that the rifle was indeed taken off of her body and then returned to it prior to photos 27 and 32 being taken. So no disadvantage to Jeremy there then.
I have the transcript - I have everything, more than you or anybody else can begin to imagine. I have informants, I have intelligence, I have the evidence that will lead to the quashing of these convictions, my mate Jeremy will be a free man one day soon...
-
:-X
Photograph 26, you have not seen it, so you don't know - At least I have got, and seen another image of Sheila on the bed (with no blood running, leaking an pouring from corners of her mouth, etc.)..
Oh, gosh...
-
You have no evidence that Sheila was shot by the Police, only that either the gun was moved or Sheila's hand was moved,you have no evidence that anyone entering the premises of White House Farm that morning heard a shot,it was DCI Taff Jones who as overall head of the investigation declared the crime to be four murders and a suicide and the lower ranks who were dissatisfied with that theory,there is no evidence that Sheila had gone berserk with a gun because no Police officer recollects talking exclusively to Ralph(Nevill) Bamber. There is no evidence of gun oil on Sheila's nightdress or evidence that she discharged a rifle 25 times,neither is there evidence of any physical exertion or sweat on her face from someone who had been in a fierce struggle with Nevill.
To counter this we have Jeremy's assertions to Julie that he must have a "mental problem" because he had no feelings at all towards the deceased,his assertion that Nevill put up a stronger struggle than expected as he fought for his life and in this fight a glove came off in the exchange.We have Julie telling us how Jeremy knew a way into the property avoiding the main thoroughfares through one of the downstairs windows,which he may well have left open before he left for the night on August 6.
What about JB's " mental problem ".? Emotionless as she exited the mortuary after seeing two little boys. Her own face showing no emotion at the funeral because she was too busy looking and waiting for Jeremys' reactions.
So far as Jeremy was concerned,,if you've ever had experience of peoples emotions,,you'll find that everyone's different in the way they express them. Just because you didn't see Jeremy in a heap,blubbering his heart out,doesn't mean to say that at some point it wouldn't " hit" him at some point in his life.
I don't " do " blubbering,,,as it's usually a sign of guilt anyway,,especially when you see them on television being interviewed by the press,etc. If Jeremy had acted in this way,,then I wouldn't be on this forum supporting him.
-
Photograph 26, you have not seen it, so you don't know - At least I have got, and seen another image of Sheila on the bed (with no blood running, leaking an pouring from corners of her mouth, etc.)..
Oh, gosh...
The list Tyler was referring to when she mentioned photo 26 is a list of photos in the court album. Are you now saying that there was a photo of Sheila and June on the bed in the court album?
-
Aaagh...
on bed together I am afraid - you cottoned onto me so soon...
On the bed it is, together, exactly what DC Clarke / DS Jones, told Ann Eaton on morning of shootings...
Pity you cant prove that Mike.
Getting back to yesterday's theory..
(1) Rifle moved lower to fit with 'suicide' (2) crime scene photography... but with a dead female already logged downstairs and this photography recording wet blood, there is a problem (3) more crime scene photography from a fixed position, in order to record blood in a more congealed state from the same angle? Once you have the congealed photos, all you have to do is bury the logs and the wet photos. Hey presto.
Why has only one wet blood photo made it in to the public domain though?
-
Unless you have a transcript of Bird's evidence it is impossible to say what the jury were told with regards the order of the photographs. Given that the photo of the rifle in the window is numbered 23, your claim that photo 26 shows Sheila without the rifle, and then 27 and 32 show her with it, without further explanation the jury will have assumed that the rifle was indeed taken off of her body and then returned to it prior to photos 27 and 32 being taken. So no disadvantage to Jeremy there then.
OK, I give in - here is PC Birds trial transcript, read it and do your best to try and discredit what I am saying - good luck:-
-
OK, I give in - here is PC Birds trial transcript, read it and do your best to try and discredit what I am saying - good luck:-
I knew my war of attrition would eventually succeed... ta in advance :)
-
Pity you cant prove that Mike.
Getting back to yesterday's theory..
(1) Rifle moved lower to fit with 'suicide' (2) crime scene photography... but with a dead female already logged downstairs and this photography recording wet blood, there is a problem (3) more crime scene photography from a fixed position, in order to record blood in a more congealed state from the same angle? Once you have the congealed photos, all you have to do is bury the logs and the wet photos. Hey presto.
Why has only one wet blood photo made it in to the public domain though?
Simple...
Training officers took photographs and video footage of training exercise in addition to the pictures taken by PC Bird (SOCO)...
-
The list Tyler was referring to when she mentioned photo 26 is a list of photos in the court album. Are you now saying that there was a photo of Sheila and June on the bed in the court album?
Er...
I do not think so, no...
Definitely not a photograph of June and Sheila on the bed in the "COURT ALBUM" (50) , or the "MASTER COPY ALBUM (223)"...
-
I knew my war of attrition would eventually succeed... ta in advance :)
You win, I am your prisoner, at your mercy...
Give me a few moments to configure how to post the relevant transcript:-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2185.0;attach=11955;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2185.0;attach=11956;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2185.0;attach=11957;image)
-
Simple...
Training officers took photographs and video footage of training exercise in addition to the pictures taken by PC Bird (SOCO)...
That's interesting Mike but I don't know how it fits my question?
-
That's interesting Mike but I don't know how it fits my question?
I will try to explain later, just trying to upload, trial transcript of PC Bird, at the moment...
-
steve I think if anyone had mental problems it was Julie. To identify the little twins and show no emotion only ask questions which I will not post up then saying she needed a ciggy. To share a bed with Jeremy a normal person would have the images of the little twins all the time. That is not normal behaviour I know you said love is blind but come on now steve not that blind. Also if she knew he was going to commit the murders she could have stopped it. Did she not wonder if she was going to be next. My impression of Julie is a cold calculating young woman who would have easily lead Jeremy astray and she had her eyes on the £'s sign.
So right,,Susan. You can't beat an abundance of lifes' experiences.
I was a nurse,,,but I can tell you that each time a baby/child passed away,it cut me up,,,so for JM to have VOLUNTARILY gone into a morgue just beggars belief.
BTW,,her writing/spelling skills left a lot to be desired considering her present post.! Just thought I'd mention it,,though she wasn't too interested in that aspect,,only what you mentioned in your last paragraph. What were her nicest attributes anyway.? Answer on a postage stamp.
-
So right,,Susan. You can't beat an abundance of lifes' experiences.
I was a nurse,,,but I can tell you that each time a baby/child passed away,it cut me up,,,so for JM to have VOLUNTARILY gone into a morgue just beggars belief.
BTW,,her writing/spelling skills left a lot to be desired considering her present post.! Just thought I'd mention it,,though she wasn't too interested in that aspect,,only what you mentioned in your last paragraph. What were her nicest attributes anyway.? Answer on a postage stamp.
Lookout it is slightly odd you are right, and I cannot in honestly work out why she did that. All I can say is that she wanted to know whether it was real of not. It's a psychological thing, but I will be honest and say to malign someone you dont know like that is quite odd as well. You have highlighted her lack of spelling skills and lack of pleasant attributes. Let me tell you now that EXACTLY the same can be said of Jeremy Bamber and you know it.
-
You win, I am your prisoner, at your mercy...
Give me a few moments to configure how to post the relevant transcript:-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2185.0;attach=11955;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2185.0;attach=11956;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2185.0;attach=11957;image)
Lets get order that PC Bird took pictures upstairs, so we can be certain and clear:-
He took following photographs, in following order, as per schedule for "COURT ALBUM (223)":-
25 - photograph of June Bamber
34 - showing June Bamber and Sheila Caffell in the main bedroom
35 - showing cartridge cases besides body of SC
31 - position of rifle in Sheila Caffells body
33 - showing cartridge case beside body
27 - showing Sheila Caffell showing position of rifle and bible
37 - Close up view of June Bamber
42 - view showing bedspread and cartridge case beside bed
22 - showing cartridge case on middle landing of main stairs
26 - view showing bodies of June and Sheila
32 - showing position of rifle on Sheila's body
29 - showing position of rifle in body of Sheila CFaffell
and
37 - close up view of June Bamber...
-
Lookout it is slightly odd you are right, and I cannot in honestly work out why she did that. All I can say is that she wanted to know whether it was real of not. It's a psychological thing, but I will be honest and say to malign someone you dont know like that is quite odd as well. You have highlighted her lack of spelling skills and lack of pleasant attributes. Let me tell you now that EXACTLY the same can be said of Jeremy Bamber and you know it.
Jeremy had some brilliant character references.Don't remember the same coming forthwith from those who knew JM,,least of all poor June ( who had called her a harlot,to her face )
I don't need to know anybody whose photograph shows a cold-hearted person. That,to me,speaks volumes.
Jeremy was the loving son that Barbara Wilson described him as. The son that she,herself ,would gladly have exchanged for her own. You'll find her statement somewhere.
-
Where's the next page Mike? He hasn't got to 23 yet (unless I'm not paying attention).
-
steve I think if anyone had mental problems it was Julie. To identify the little twins and show no emotion only ask questions which I will not post up then saying she needed a ciggy. To share a bed with Jeremy a normal person would have the images of the little twins all the time. That is not normal behaviour I know you said love is blind but come on now steve not that blind. Also if she knew he was going to commit the murders she could have stopped it. Did she not wonder if she was going to be next. My impression of Julie is a cold calculating young woman who would have easily lead Jeremy astray and she had her eyes on the £'s sign.
Unfortunately for the Jeremy supporters it was not Julie Mugford who was on trial for the murders-it was Jeremy. The more I read Julie's statement it becomes evident to me that Jeremy needed Julie at Goldhanger as a pretext to having the bicycle there,the bicycle that Jeremy was perfectly capable of riding as evidenced by Ann Eaton.Jeremy felt no remorse for the murders,he was drifting away from Julie as possibly she thought in terms of a more permanent relationship,yet Jeremy found himself in an ambivalent position. Although Julie was necessary for his plan he had realized even before the murders that they had no future together,hence his awkward stance about her person when they were in his parents' company,and his excuse that he would not marry her in the Winter of 1984 because the idea had emanated from his mother. What the Jeremy supporters cannot deny are the three telephone calls which he made to Julie over a period of several hours from the Tuesday evening until the Wednesday morning of the murders,suggesting that Julie was still an integral part of his plan,if not an accessory herself. Of course the Jeremy supporters cannot plug this line as it leads them down a blind alley,a blind alley at the extremity of which lies Jeremy's guilt. It simply will not do to castigate Sheila for her mental illness and use her as a scapegoat for Jeremy's wicked scheme, into which he believed he had roped Julie so tightly that she would be terrorized into conformity.
Remember the arm-twisting at the Maida Vale flat? This was Jeremy the control freak,Jeremy from whom this shocking scheme had all along its derivation,and which would have succeeded but for the fortitude of Julie,who sacrificed her love to foil this abominable machination which he almost accomplished in front of an unsuspecting public.
-
Unfortunately for the Jeremy supporters it was not Julie Mugford who was on trial for the murders-it was Jeremy. The more I read Julie's statement it becomes evident to me that Jeremy needed Julie at Goldhanger as a pretext to having the bicycle there,the bicycle that Jeremy was perfectly capable of riding as evidenced by Ann Eaton.Jeremy felt no remorse for the murders,he was drifting away from Julie as possibly she thought in terms of a more permanent relationship,yet Jeremy found himself in an ambivalent position. Although Julie was necessary for his plan he had realized even before the murders that they had no future together,hence his awkward stance about her person when they were in his parents' company,and his excuse that he would not marry her in the Winter of 1984 because the idea had emanated from his mother. What the Jeremy supporters cannot deny are the three telephone calls which he made to Julie over a period of several hours from the Tuesday evening until the Wednesday morning of the murders,suggesting that Julie was still an integral part of his plan,if not an accessory herself. Of course the Jeremy supporters cannot plug this line as it leads them down a blind alley,a blind alley at the extremity of which lies Jeremy's guilt. It simply will not do to castigate Sheila for her mental illness and use her as a scapegoat for Jeremy's wicked scheme, into which he believed he had roped Julie so tightly that she would be terrorized into conformity.
Remember the arm-twisting at the Maida Vale flat? This was Jeremy the control freak,Jeremy from whom this shocking scheme had all along its derivation,and which would have succeeded but for the fortitude of Julie,who sacrificed her love to foil this abominable machination which he almost accomplished in front of an unsuspecting public.
What a fertile imagination...
-
Where's the next page Mike? He hasn't got to 23 yet (unless I'm not paying attention).
It's coming, it's coming:-
-
It's coming, it's coming:-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2185.0;attach=11956;image)(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2185.0;attach=11957;image)(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2185.0;attach=11958;image)(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2185.0;attach=11959;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2185.0;attach=11960;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2185.0;attach=11961;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2185.0;attach=11962;image)(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2185.0;attach=11963;image)
-
Jeremy had some brilliant character references.Don't remember the same coming forthwith from those who knew JM,,least of all poor June ( who had called her a harlot,to her face )
I don't need to know anybody whose photograph shows a cold-hearted person. That,to me,speaks volumes.
Jeremy was the loving son that Barbara Wilson described him as. The son that she,herself ,would gladly have exchanged for her own. You'll find her statement somewhere.
Yes,and you will also find her statement regarding Ralph's(Nevill's) anxiety about a possible shooting accident which might befall him in the near future. Had his RAF training made him sense danger lurking when Jeremy was nearby? Had he been suspicious of Jeremy's recent Damascene conversion to the farming industry,behaviour also noted by Ann Eaton? Had Nevill looked Jeremy in the eye and been shocked at the nature of what he saw? He was sufficiently concerned to voice these fears to Barbara,as well as adding that "I must never turn my back on that young man" thus ruling Sheila completely out of the equation,as if that were somehow necessary anyway with a London model more concerned about breaking a nail whilst washing the pots rather than ever contemplating the messy business of loading a cartridge case,the cartridge case full of ammunition which Jeremy had emptied out onto the kitchen counter not a few hours previously,along with the .22 anschutz rifle which he had just happened to leave on the settle in the kitchen.
-
Hi steve and remember the pillow she put over his face when she tried to smother him saying "if I can't have him nobody can" Julie was not terrorised by Jeremy or anybody else. She was quite able to commit fraud without Jeremy twisting her arm up her back. Do you honestly think had Jeremy planned these murders he would have confided in her then dumped her think about it. Jeremy was not a brainless person I don't think for one moment he was the cunning evil person some try to portray. Answer my earlier question after identifying two little 6 year old boys at the morgue then sharing Jeremy's bed for a further 4 weeks is this normal behaviour from a woman's point of view not normal at all maybe males are different. Every moment of looking at Jeremy she would have seen the two little boys and their little innocent faces and she should have if normal felt physically sick and would have been revolted by his touch.
-
It's coming, it's coming:-
Does he ever get to 23?
-
Does he ever get to 23?
Eventually, yes - he is a conniving individual, caught up in the conspiracy surrounding the stage managing of Sheila Caffells body...
-
So right,,Susan. You can't beat an abundance of lifes' experiences.
I was a nurse,,,but I can tell you that each time a baby/child passed away,it cut me up,,,so for JM to have VOLUNTARILY gone into a morgue just beggars belief.
BTW,,her writing/spelling skills left a lot to be desired considering her present post.! Just thought I'd mention it,,though she wasn't too interested in that aspect,,only what you mentioned in your last paragraph. What were her nicest attributes anyway.? Answer on a postage stamp.
It may just be worth here, drawing to peoples attention/jogging memories, that had she been proscecuted for the "trivial" crimes of passing fraudulent cheques, robbery of a caravan park and drug, she most certainly would not have been able to carry on with her intention of becoming a teacher because having a criminal record would have precluded it, however, lack of trial doesn't eradicate the crime she committed. Also, it is doubtful that she would have been allowed a work permit, let alone residency in Canada with a criminal record. It seems to me that she may have had so much to lose, that metaphorically, it came down to a life for a life.
-
Eventually, yes - he is a conniving individual, caught up in the conspiracy surrounding the stage managing of Sheila Caffells body...
So..he says 23 was the 3rd photo taken after leaving the main bedroom. Why don't you think that's true?
-
Yes,and you will also find her statement regarding Ralph's(Nevill's) anxiety about a possible shooting accident which might befall him in the near future. Had his RAF training made him sense danger lurking when Jeremy was nearby? Had he been suspicious of Jeremy's recent Damascene conversion to the farming industry,behaviour also noted by Ann Eaton? Had Nevill looked Jeremy in the eye and been shocked at the nature of what he saw? He was sufficiently concerned to voice these fears to Barbara,as well as adding that "I must never turn my back on that young man" thus ruling Sheila completely out of the equation,as if that were somehow necessary anyway with a London model more concerned about breaking a nail whilst washing the pots rather than ever contemplating the messy business of loading a cartridge case,the cartridge case full of ammunition which Jeremy had emptied out onto the kitchen counter not a few hours previously,along with the .22 anschutz rifle which he had just happened to leave on the settle in the kitchen.
Oh dear,,Steve,you're misconstruing what Ralph said by putting your emphasis on " never ".It was meant to have been said in reference to looking after Jeremy,as opposed to letting Sheila muddle along with her illness. You say it your way,,Steve,,we'll say it ours.
Strange how there were no derogatory statements from Barbara Wilson. Because Jeremy was always well-mannered and didn't give anyone any cause to question his behaviour in the family home.
Whatever you've said or suggested about Jeremy,doesn't make him a murderer.
How do you know that Ralph didn't put the rifle and cartridges away after Jeremy had left.? Ralph used to do this as a ritual,tidying up after the rifles were finished with. That night wouldn't have been any different,,more so because the children were staying.
-
Yes,and you will also find her statement regarding Ralph's(Nevill's) anxiety about a possible shooting accident which might befall him in the near future. Had his RAF training made him sense danger lurking when Jeremy was nearby? Had he been suspicious of Jeremy's recent Damascene conversion to the farming industry,behaviour also noted by Ann Eaton? Had Nevill looked Jeremy in the eye and been shocked at the nature of what he saw? He was sufficiently concerned to voice these fears to Barbara,as well as adding that "I must never turn my back on that young man" thus ruling Sheila completely out of the equation,as if that were somehow necessary anyway with a London model more concerned about breaking a nail whilst washing the pots rather than ever contemplating the messy business of loading a cartridge case,the cartridge case full of ammunition which Jeremy had emptied out onto the kitchen counter not a few hours previously,along with the .22 anschutz rifle which he had just happened to leave on the settle in the kitchen.
I have explained this to you before.Nevill was receiving threats from someone (possibly hence the installation of the panic alarm).A friend of Nevill made a witness statement stating that he was present a couple of times when Nevill took calls from this person/persons in his office.These calls were unnerving Nevill.Do you think that perhaps this what he was referring to when he had that alleged conversation with BW? Dont forget that at the time of his death,Nevill was having a very troubled relationship with Anthony Pargeter re:Anthonys anger that Nevill had recently given JB a small holding farm that Anthony felt should have stayed within the Pargeter family.
-
Hi steve and remember the pillow she put over his face when she tried to smother him saying "if I can't have him nobody can" Julie was not terrorised by Jeremy or anybody else. She was quite able to commit fraud without Jeremy twisting her arm up her back. Do you honestly think had Jeremy planned these murders he would have confided in her then dumped her think about it. Jeremy was not a brainless person I don't think for one moment he was the cunning evil person some try to portray. Answer my earlier question after identifying two little 6 year old boys at the morgue then sharing Jeremy's bed for a further 4 weeks is this normal behaviour from a woman's point of view not normal at all maybe males are different. Every moment of looking at Jeremy she would have seen the two little boys and their little innocent faces and she should have if normal felt physically sick and would have been revolted by his touch.
The pillow incident was a tantrum,as was stabbing the teddy bear.But they left on amicable terms because Jeremy helped Julie move into her new flat. Julie did tackle Jeremy about the killings and how he could just carry on,how Colin had comforted him and been understanding whilst all the time Jeremy had been the perpetrator. This probably did make the situation unbearable between the two of them,along with the fact that Jeremy possibly thought he could do better than Julie now he had his inheritance. As far as Jeremy was concerned the White House Farm murders were in the past,along with Julie,and now he was free to live life on his terms.
-
Indeed,,somebody wanted Jeremy to get the blame. Of that there's no doubt whatsoever.
-
steve maybe when Jeremy twisted Julie's arm up her back he was just having a tantrum and they made it up. How do you know Julie tried to talk to him about the murders unless of course you are Julie.You still think it was normal behaviour for Julie to share a bed with a man that had just murdered 5 people two of them being 6 year olds that she had seen lying in the morgue. Their little innocent faces should have haunted her everytime she looked at Jeremy. Stop evading the question steve you cannot have everything your way to fit your theories.
-
steve maybe when Jeremy twisted Julie's arm up her back he was just having a tantrum and they made it up. How do you know Julie tried to talk to him about the murders unless of course you are Julie.You still think it was normal behaviour for Julie to share a bed with a man that had just murdered 5 people two of them being 6 year olds that she had seen lying in the morgue. Their little innocent faces should have haunted her everytime she looked at Jeremy. Stop evading the question steve you cannot have everything your way to fit your theories.
It's so ridiculous to blame Julie Mugford,a 21 year old student for the consequences of Jeremy's handiwork it beggars belief. She did broach the subject with Jeremy who replied that he had something mentally wrong with him or words to that effect because he felt nothing. He felt nothing because those five people meant nothing to him in his life,don't you see? A young girl in love finally saw that she had been used when Jeremy expressed more enthusiasm for being in the company of both Virginia and Brett than the girl he had been dating for two years.
-
steve maybe when Jeremy twisted Julie's arm up her back he was just having a tantrum and they made it up. How do you know Julie tried to talk to him about the murders unless of course you are Julie.You still think it was normal behaviour for Julie to share a bed with a man that had just murdered 5 people two of them being 6 year olds that she had seen lying in the morgue. Their little innocent faces should have haunted her everytime she looked at Jeremy. Stop evading the question steve you cannot have everything your way to fit your theories.
How could one possibly share a bed and close ones eyes on a man, known to have killed 5 people without wondering and worrying about who might be his 6th victim?
-
How could one possibly share a bed and close ones eyes on a man, known to have killed 5 people without wondering and worrying about who might be his 6th victim?
..because she had been going steady with him for two years and saw that in many ways he was just immature and insecure,and when presented with the fait accompli she stayed by his side as many women have done in the past. The murders were over,they were past events and both Julie and Jeremy were looking to the future,though in different directions. I'm not sure they were ever alone together anyhow during those five weeks;I believe Jeremy made the excuse that they had better not talk privately in case the Maida Vale Flat were bugged.
-
steve I would like to know how you know about intimate conversations between Julie and Jeremy. Answer my question is it normal behaviour for a woman to share a bed with a man who she knew had murdered his family and she had been to the morgue and seen the little faces of the twins knowing that Jeremy was responsible for their deaths. A normal woman would have found Jeremy repulsive and would have not been able to look at him. Sleep with him I suspect be intimate with him drinking together. Had Jeremy carried out these murders she would have been equally as guilty as him and stop trying to tell me she was terrified of him as I will never buy that. I suspect he was bored with her and would have wanted to move on from her and certainly would not have confided in her with regard to such a serious crime. Think about it that would be information kept to himself.
-
What a fertile imagination...
No more fertile than yours Mike.
-
steve I think you must be Julie you seem to know so much about private conversations that went on between her and Jeremy or perhaps you are a close relative.
-
How could one possibly share a bed and close ones eyes on a man, known to have killed 5 people without wondering and worrying about who might be his 6th victim?
April,,JM knew full well that Jeremy hadn't murdered anyone,,but because there was another woman on the scene,,she put on a display of sheer spite and scorn,,then added to it until she became in too deep so had to scarper,,as you would if you'd told tales like that which would land them in prison. In the end,,she must have convinced herself. One day,,she might just see the error of her ways. No wonder she doesn't want to see him released. Just as if he's going to do anything,,good God,,he's been incarcerated for nothing as it is.
It was purely and simply a revenge attack from JM,,,trouble was,,it went a bit further than she'd anticipated.
-
steve I would like to know how you know about intimate conversations between Julie and Jeremy. Answer my question is it normal behaviour for a woman to share a bed with a man who she knew had murdered his family and she had been to the morgue and seen the little faces of the twins knowing that Jeremy was responsible for their deaths. A normal woman would have found Jeremy repulsive and would have not been able to look at him. Sleep with him I suspect be intimate with him drinking together. Had Jeremy carried out these murders she would have been equally as guilty as him and stop trying to tell me she was terrified of him as I will never buy that. I suspect he was bored with her and would have wanted to move on from her and certainly would not have confided in her with regard to such a serious crime. Think about it that would be information kept to himself.
Susan he needed her visiting the cottage to have the excuse of the bicycle to ride. The conversations are going from Julie Mugford's testimony which records conversations they had together over the period you are talking about.
-
So.......Julie knew that JB had executed his family,including 2 sleeping little boys.
If she really believed this,then how long do we think the sheer horror of it all would hit her and she should go to the police?
On the morning of the murders?
After a visit with a devastated Colin?
After viewing their bodies at the mortuary?
After the twins funeral?
Or after JB dumps her and takes up with another woman.
After hearing whispers that Jeremy was being blamed for the tragedy, she was surely worried as to what was going to be exposed regarding any previous criminal activities she and JB had undertaken.
Now,Julie has lost the man she loves,any inheritance that Im sure she hoped to benefit from and her dream of a teaching career now in jeopardy.
Now is when she decides to go to the police.
-
right steve understand now the only reason he bothered with Julie and told her he had murdered his family so he could have June's bike at his cottage I never thought of that.
-
Susan he needed her visiting the cottage to have the excuse of the bicycle to ride. The conversations are going from Julie Mugford's testimony which records conversations they had together over the period you are talking about.
Nobody needed any excuse to ride a bicycle for goodness sake,,least of all Jeremy who had a good car. The suggestion of a bicycle was for Julies' use to cycle from Goldhanger to the farm when Jeremy was at work.
Supposition and autosuggestion like that doesn't work on here,Steve
-
Nobody needed any excuse to ride a bicycle for goodness sake,,least of all Jeremy who had a good car. The suggestion of a bicycle was for Julies' use to cycle from Goldhanger to the farm when Jeremy was at work.
Supposition and autosuggestion like that doesn't work on here,Steve
Erm.....lookout have you actually read some of your own posts? Maybe hypocrisy does?
-
So.......Julie knew that JB had executed his family,including 2 sleeping little boys.
If she really believed this,then how long do we think the sheer horror of it all would hit her and she should go to the police?
On the morning of the murders?
After a visit with a devastated Colin?
After viewing their bodies at the mortuary?
After the twins funeral?
Or after JB dumps her and takes up with another woman.
After hearing whispers that Jeremy was being blamed for the tragedy, she was surely worried as to what was going to be exposed regarding any previous criminal activities she and JB had undertaken.
Now,Julie has lost the man she loves,any inheritance that Im sure she hoped to benefit from and her dream of a teaching career now in jeopardy.
Now is when she decides to go to the police.
See pictures F11.jpg and F12.jpg. This reveals everything about Julie Mugford that you need to know. Her face betrays the fact that she did not suspect Jeremy at all.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,887.0.html
-
..because she had been going steady with him for two years and saw that in many ways he was just immature and insecure,and when presented with the fait accompli she stayed by his side as many women have done in the past. The murders were over,they were past events and both Julie and Jeremy were looking to the future,though in different directions. I'm not sure they were ever alone together anyhow during those five weeks;I believe Jeremy made the excuse that they had better not talk privately in case the Maida Vale Flat were bugged.
Staying with a man she regards as immature and insecure tells me that she saw an opportunity to manipulate. Why else would a university educated woman choose to stay with such a person? Please don't tell me love because love needs to be fed, and I don't mean with things, I mean with similar intelligence, similar aspirations and expectations. So, what about sex? OK, WHAT about sex!!!!! It was wonderful!!! So is a good steak, cooked the way you like it, but how many variations are there of ways to cook steak? In the end, wouldn't you just long for any damn thing as long as it's not steak.
So, murders committed. All done and dusted, in the past. Forgotten. They can now look forward to the future!!!!! I trust it's her psychopathy which you're presenting here. At the very least, her mental faculties have to come into question if she accepts what her immature boyfriend says about a flat being bugged. Who did she think was involved, MI5?
-
I know it seems silly April, but he was under surveillance in the September, and he knew it.
-
April,,JM knew full well that Jeremy hadn't murdered anyone,,but because there was another woman on the scene,,she put on a display of sheer spite and scorn,,then added to it until she became in too deep so had to scarper,,as you would if you'd told tales like that which would land them in prison. In the end,,she must have convinced herself. One day,,she might just see the error of her ways. No wonder she doesn't want to see him released. Just as if he's going to do anything,,good God,,he's been incarcerated for nothing as it is.
It was purely and simply a revenge attack from JM,,,trouble was,,it went a bit further than she'd anticipated.
The man you are all describing is a monster who has convinced himself over the course of twenty seven years when everyone else has been getting on with their lives that he hasn't done it. Do you seriously expect me to believe that Jeremy Bamber talks to his victims inside his head from his prison cell every day and takes solace from the maxims of his father,a man who was not his real father and who was disappointed at the very least in him because he did not fit into his idea of a son?
It's high time Jeremy came clean in this case and admitted that he went through a phase as a young man bordering on sociopathy towards his adopted family,who may well for a man of limited intellect been difficult to live with. He should apologize to Colin and the other relatives and apologize to the criminal justice system for wasting so much Police time. He won't yet because he still has too much to lose and is clinging on in the vain hope that sometimes convictions are quashed when a guilty man persists in maintaining his innocence,such as the wife who asked by her husband to write suicide notes and was found a short time later hanging by the neck in the family garage.
-
So.......Julie knew that JB had executed his family,including 2 sleeping little boys.
If she really believed this,then how long do we think the sheer horror of it all would hit her and she should go to the police?
On the morning of the murders?
After a visit with a devastated Colin?
After viewing their bodies at the mortuary?
After the twins funeral?
Or after JB dumps her and takes up with another woman.
After hearing whispers that Jeremy was being blamed for the tragedy, she was surely worried as to what was going to be exposed regarding any previous criminal activities she and JB had undertaken.
Now,Julie has lost the man she loves,any inheritance that Im sure she hoped to benefit from and her dream of a teaching career now in jeopardy.
Now is when she decides to go to the police.
Great post. Bang on. I think she got wind that Jeremy's world was about to cave in. Given the brief handed to Ainsley and DS Jones, I feel that somebody got to her. Her 'unburdening' could then be engineered.
-
Hi lookout I think you are more able than me to comment on steve's latest ridiculous post.
-
Great post tyler hope steve is reading it.
-
The man you are all describing is a monster who has convinced himself over the course of twenty seven years when everyone else has been getting on with their lives that he hasn't done it. Do you seriously expect me to believe that Jeremy Bamber talks to his victims inside his head from his prison cell every day and takes solace from the maxim's of his father,a man who was not his real father and who was disappointed at the very least in him because he did not fit into his idea of a son?
It's high time Jeremy came clean in this case and admitted that he went through a phase as a young man bordering on sociopathy towards his adopted family,who may well for a man of limited intellect been difficult to live with. He should apologize to Colin and the other relatives and apologize to the criminal justice system for wasting so much Police time. He won't yet because he still has too much to lose and is clinging on in the vain hope that sometimes convictions are quashed when a guilty man persists in maintaining his innocence,such as the wife who asked by her husband to write suicide notes and was found a short time later hanging by the neck in the family garage.
No. After reading some of the rubbish you have written. No one who thinks intelligently expects you to believe anything serious. It seems that you have concocted senarios that arise not from the facts but from the chain of events that have knitted themselves together within your own head.
-
The man you are all describing is a monster who has convinced himself over the course of twenty seven years when everyone else has been getting on with their lives that he hasn't done it. Do you seriously expect me to believe that Jeremy Bamber talks to his victims inside his head from his prison cell every day and takes solace from the maxim's of his father,a man who was not his real father and who was disappointed at the very least in him because he did not fit into his idea of a son?
It's high time Jeremy came clean in this case and admitted that he went through a phase as a young man bordering on sociopathy towards his adopted family,who may well for a man of limited intellect been difficult to live with. He should apologize to Colin and the other relatives and apologize to the criminal justice system for wasting so much Police time. He won't yet because he still has too much to lose and is clinging on in the vain hope that sometimes convictions are quashed when a guilty man persists in maintaining his innocence,such as the wife who asked by her husband to write suicide notes and was found a short time later hanging by the neck in the family garage.
Sorry Steve but JB is in inside serving a life sentence, because of lies and made up stories....He is innocent. He did not have a fair trial and he deserves a chance...that is our democratic right, of which is being refused. :) :) :)
-
Sorry Steve but JB is in inside serving a life sentence, because of lies and made up stories....He is innocent. He did not have a fair trial and he deserves a chance...that is our democratic right, of which is being refused. :) :) :)
He never did have a fair trial. Why don't people realise the fact that it is the prosecution's job to make a case against the accused by hook or by crook? Mostly by crook. The daily withold evidence from the defence. This is common practice. Why are people so gullible so as to believe and trust these vultures of the law?
-
Erm.....lookout have you actually read some of your own posts? Maybe hypocrisy does?
Be quiet,Moe. Of course I read my posts.I know what I'm doing. Do you.?
A hypocrite,I'm not.!
-
See pictures F11.jpg and F12.jpg. This reveals everything about Julie Mugford that you need to know. Her face betrays the fact that she did not suspect Jeremy at all.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,887.0.html
I don't see the significance of those two photographs grahame as regards the character of Julie Mugford. Could you possibly elucidate?
-
No. After reading some of the rubbish you have written. No one who thinks intelligently expects you to believe anything serious. It seems that you have concocted senarios that arise not from the facts but from the chain of events that have knitted themselves together within your own head.
GO GRAHAME!!!!! YIPPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
-
I don't see the significance of those two photographs grahame as regards the character of Julie Mugford. Could you possibly elucidate?
Well if she did know all about JB's plans then her "innocent" face makes her just as guilty as JB. If guilty he be. But if she is as innocent as she looks it means that she made it all up at a later stage ie after JB dumped her.
-
Nobody needed any excuse to ride a bicycle for goodness sake,,least of all Jeremy who had a good car. The suggestion of a bicycle was for Julies' use to cycle from Goldhanger to the farm when Jeremy was at work.
Supposition and autosuggestion like that doesn't work on here,Steve
I really don't know where to start with that one so I'll just leave it hanging in the air and trust that it is recognized for the absurd scribbling it manifestly is..
-
I really don't know where to start with that one so I'll just leave it hanging in the air and trust that it is recognized for the absurd scribbling it manifestly is..
No need for compliments Steve.
-
No need for compliments Steve.
Take no notice Lookout..........bike was forensically tested and no evidence found!
-
Well if she did know all about JB's plans then her "innocent" face makes her just as guilty as JB. If guilty he be. But if she is as innocent as she looks it means that she made it all up at a later stage ie after JB dumped her.
Grahame I think you referred to the wrong photographs but if you mean those taken at the funeral you have a point and who knows if DS Stan Jones put the frighteners on Julie with information that he had gleaned from the relatives. Julie knew that she had a fine balancing act to perform at the trial to put enough distance between herself and Jeremy so as not to make her an accessory after the fact,and yet to be perceived as close enough to him to be a credible witness. I reiterate unless and until the Jeremy supporters can rubbish Julie's evidence with hard facts then the authorities will not risk letting a 5 times convicted murderer out of prison.
-
Take no notice Lookout..........bike was forensically tested and no evidence found!
Hi tyler,,yes,,and Steve knows that too,,he's just being pedantic.
-
who knows if DS Stan Jones put the frighteners on Julie with information that he had gleaned from the relatives. Julie knew that she had a fine balancing act to perform at the trial to put enough distance between herself and Jeremy so as not to make her an accessory after the fact,and yet to be perceived as close enough to him to be a credible witness. I reiterate unless and until the Jeremy supporters can rubbish Julie's evidence with hard facts then the authorities will not risk letting a 5 times convicted murderer out of prison.
That's a fair post though I would be tempted to change the last sentence slightly.
-
Hi tyler,,yes,,and Steve knows that too,,he's just being pedantic.
Jeremy had enough time to clean the bicycle whilst he was supposedly flicking through Yellow Pages for ten minutes,when one quick call to 999 was the best way of trying to prevent loss of life at the farm,let alone waking up Julie in London. To my knowledge Jeremy was never forensically tested nor his cottage searched thoroughly on the morning of the investigation because the Police went with the theory he had planted in their heads.
-
That's a fair post though I would be tempted to change the last sentence slightly.
To what? It's harsh, but probably true.
With regards Julie, it may be worth pointing out that she is a real live person with as much ability as anyone else to get forums shut down. Just sayin..
-
That's a fair post though I would be tempted to change the last sentence slightly.
Roch the Boutflour and Eaton relatives have expressed concern regarding their own safety should Jeremy Bamber be released. I just can't envisage a scenario where his conviction is ruled as unsafe,because you couldn't have Jeremy wandering around Winnipeg..the only end I can see to this is for the government to build a facility on a remote Scottish island similar to the Anders Behring Breivik installation they are building in Norway which might afford Jeremy a modicum of dignity free from the danger of attack in his old age.
-
Take no notice Lookout..........bike was forensically tested and no evidence found!
For everyone's information especially the over imaginative steve-uk, the bike was thoroughly forensically examined by the appropriate authorities and rightly discounted by them as being used in the "crime" by anyone. It was (and this has been verified) taken to JB's house in order that JM could use it. This has been established even by those close to the family.
The idea that the bike was used in the crime came entirely from RWB's fairytail diary. Unfortunately it has taken root in the minds of those who think they have the caee all worked out in their tiny minds.
-
To what? It's harsh, but probably true.
I think it's more a case of being not being seen to let him out without her statements and testimony trashed. I do not believe the case is not politicised.
-
steve may I just ask you a simple question. You are in no doubt Jeremy Bamber is guilty. He is in prison for life for the crimes. Your point on the forum is not to prove his guilt as the Court did that so who are you on here defending and why do you find it necessay to do this.
-
Roch the Boutflour and Eaton relatives have expressed concern regarding their own safety should Jeremy Bamber be released.
It's a pity nobody expressed strong enough concerns about the danger they represented 27 years ago, even if it was inadvertant on their part. Debatable.
-
For everyone's information especially the over imaginative steve-uk, the bike was thoroughly forensically examined by the appropriate authorities and rightly discounted by them as being used in the "crime" by anyone. It was (and this has been verified) taken to JB's house in order that JM could use it. This has been established even by those close to the family.
The idea that the bike was used in the crime came entirely from RWB's fairytail diary. Unfortunately it has taken root in the minds of those who think they have the caee all worked out in their tiny minds.
Not at all it's in Julie's statement that this is how Jeremy planned to access the farm in the early hours of the morning. There is the other detail in Julie's testimony about a glove coming off in the fight with Nevill,the kitchen window access,Jeremy chuckling in her ear at Goldhanger "I should have been an actor" whilst the Police were in a contiguous room,the spree which Jeremy indulged in,the torn up photograph of the twins,the information for which I think came from Brett Collins..
-
Roch the Boutflour and Eaton relatives have expressed concern regarding their own safety should Jeremy Bamber be released. I just can't envisage a scenario where his conviction is ruled as unsafe,because you couldn't have Jeremy wandering around Winnipeg..the only end I can see to this is for the government to build a facility on a remote Scottish island similar to the Anders Behring Breivik installation they are building in Norway which might afford Jeremy a modicum of dignity free from the danger of attack in his old age.
Is that whats happening in Norway? theyre building a facility just for Breivik ?
-
steve you are going to have the Scots declaring war on England if you keep suggesting all catA prisoners are sent to a Scottish Island and I told you before when Scottland get their Independence they will tell you where to go with your ridiculous plan.
-
steve may I just ask you a simple question. You are in no doubt Jeremy Bamber is guilty. He is in prison for life for the crimes. Your point on the forum is not to prove his guilt as the Court did that so who are you on here defending and why do you find it necessay to do this.
Susan I am on the forum to discuss the Jeremy Bamber case and if you can't handle my argumentation that is your "lookout". I have accessed as much information as I can from the internet and other sources and am grateful to members here for providing documentation and photographs which I have done my best to study and I await further sources as promised by Mike.
I did not come here parti pris as alleged by several members and have studied the layout of the farm and debated the issue of whether Sheila was shot in the kitchen,the telephone call from Nevill,the rifle evidence and the Andrew Hunter book draft,which supports a theory of the silencer being used on the first shot. As I say I am still looking through the evidence;all I would say is that at the present time I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Jeremy Bamber is the killer.
-
Grahame I think you referred to the wrong photographs but if you mean those taken at the funeral you have a point and who knows if DS Stan Jones put the frighteners on Julie with information that he had gleaned from the relatives. Julie knew that she had a fine balancing act to perform at the trial to put enough distance between herself and Jeremy so as not to make her an accessory after the fact,and yet to be perceived as close enough to him to be a credible witness. I reiterate unless and until the Jeremy supporters can rubbish Julie's evidence with hard facts then the authorities will not risk letting a 5 times convicted murderer out of prison.
FYI JM's testimony is just that. JM's testimony. She has absolutely nothing and no one to back up her story. And without the silencer evidence her words would have meant just her word against Jeremy's, period.
Similarly the siencer evidence without her testimony would amount to nothing. Unfortunately the silencer evidence is tainted as well. How? Well, it was found by "the relatives". It was backed up by "the relatives". Moreover they handled this "evidence" thus making it unfit for forensic examination.
So what do we have? What two pieces of evidence convicted Jeremy? (1) JM's evidence. A proven liar. Also her statement contained things that were untrue. (2) A contaminated silencer. One would be forgiven in asking how Jeremy Bamber was convicted on such corrupted evidence that that? That is the sum of my whole contention with the case against Jeremy Bamber. An entirely legal contention. If he did it I would have expected a greater proof of evidence than what was levelled against him. But by a clever bit of wrangling with the tiniest bit of so called evidence that they did have they managed to get him convicted and locked up for 28 years so far. When this man may indeed be innocent of that crime.
And furthermore if people are truly interested in justice they would not spend all their time trying to convince people that JB is guilty if there was any doubt in the first place. Moreover I would have thought that even if there was the slightest chance of evidence being manipulated (and there is a very big chance that in this particular case it has been) then if these people are really concerned about justice then they would fairly examine all these things and quite frankly if these people are really convinced that he is guilty, then why are they here. All they need to do is sit back and do nothing.
ps: I referred to the right link and photo numbers.
-
Grahame you are forgetting steve told us Jeremy washed the bike in between flicking through the yellow pages for the police phone number oh and phoning Julie and of course having a shower destroying all his clothes.
-
Grahame you are forgetting steve told us Jeremy washed the bike in between flicking through the yellow pages for the police phone number oh and phoning Julie and of course having a shower destroying all his clothes.
All speculation I'm afraid and all in his own fertive imagination. It was (ARE YOU LISTENING) discounted by the police FACT.
-
Is that whats happening in Norway? theyre building a facility just for Breivik ?
Yes it's an adjunct to Ila Prison,Oslo.
-
steve you are a comedian as well as a story teller. Yes I can take anything you throw up but as yet have not read one sentence that makes sense to me at all. Carry on I am sure somebody will find your posts interesting.
-
Yes it's an adjunct to Ila Prison,Oslo.
Is that for his own safety then, steve?
They are quite lenient over there.
-
a man who was not his real father and who was disappointed at the very least in him because he did not fit into his idea of a son?
Steve, May I point out that a'real' father is the man who loves and provides for you and gives unconditional love, he is not the man who gives you up for adoption and turns his back on you at the time of your need...get your facts straight, the word you are looking for is 'natural' father, something quite different.
I accept that natural parents have to give up their children for many reasons and it isn't always an easy option, however to turn away and deny your son when he claims innocence as in this situation is something different altogether.
-
So.......Julie knew that JB had executed his family,including 2 sleeping little boys.
If she really believed this,then how long do we think the sheer horror of it all would hit her and she should go to the police?
On the morning of the murders?
After a visit with a devastated Colin?
After viewing their bodies at the mortuary?
After the twins funeral?
Or after JB dumps her and takes up with another woman.
After hearing whispers that Jeremy was being blamed for the tragedy, she was surely worried as to what was going to be exposed regarding any previous criminal activities she and JB had undertaken.
Now,Julie has lost the man she loves,any inheritance that Im sure she hoped to benefit from and her dream of a teaching career now in jeopardy.
Now is when she decides to go to the police.
I think the loathing was incipient and was kindled by the benevolence of Colin towards Jeremy whom she knew had been the perpetrator. I'm sure we have all been in love at some stages of our lives and it's a moot point as to when love dissipates for a person and the motives behind it.
-
steve you are a comedian as well as a story teller. Yes I can take anything you throw up but as yet have not read one sentence that makes sense to me at all. Carry on I am sure somebody will find your posts interesting.
I may be a comedian at times on another site,but this is deadly serious if you'll pardon the pun. Isn't there an aphorism that "humour is no laughing matter".
-
steve as usual you have completely lost me just put it down to me being up since 5 a.m.
-
Steve, May I point out that a'real' father is the man who loves and provides for you and gives unconditional love, he is not the man who gives you up for adoption and turns his back on you at the time of your need...get your facts straight, the word you are looking for is 'natural' father, something quite different.
I accept that natural parents have to give up their children for many reasons and it isn't always an easy option, however to turn away and deny your son when he claims innocence as in this situation is something different altogether.
We can argue about semantics but I accept your correction. The wider point was that Jeremy felt abandoned by his parents when they sent him to Gresham's at a time when he may most have needed their love. As Sheila is reported as saying,she and her brother had all the trappings of childhood with presents at birthdays and Christmas but no hugs or outward signs of affection,which is why ultimately Jeremy could feel no remorse for what he did.
-
We can argue about semantics but I accept your correction. The wider point was that Jeremy felt abandoned by his parents when they sent him to Gresham's at a time when he may most have needed their love. As Sheila is reported as saying,she and her brother had all the trappings of childhood with presents at birthdays and Christmas but no hugs or outward signs of affection,which is why ultimately Jeremy could feel no remorse for what he did.
What did Jeremy do then Steve ?. And how.? And where's your evidence.? I don't mean a repetition of what's in some link or other,either.
Did not Sheila feel unhappy too.? Wasn't this the reason why she was expelled ?. Didn't she find " love " at the age of 17,with a farmhand.? Wasn't she forced,by her parents,to abort.? How do you think she felt then.?
-
So..he says 23 was the 3rd photo taken after leaving the main bedroom. Why don't you think that's true?
Somebody's not telling the truth, either Bird is / has lied, or the schedule produced by COLP is a false document:-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2345.0;attach=11912;image)
"Why would there be such a glaring discrepancy between when PC Bird testified that he took photograph 23, and the schedule produced by COLP (1991) which states he took photograph 23 from the vantage point of the middle landing on the main stairs showing the rifle at the bedroom window, before he took pictures of the same rifle on Sheila's body"?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2185.0;attach=11962;image)
-
Somebody's not telling the truth, either Bird is / has lied, or the schedule produced by COLP is a false document:-
"Why would there be such a glaring discrepancy between when PC Bird testified that he took photograph 23, and the schedule produced by COLP (1991) which states he took photograph 23 from the vantage point of the middle landing on the main stairs showing the rifle at the bedroom window, before he took pictures of the same rifle on Sheila's body"?
It doesn't state that at all, it's just an index of the court album. He specifically says in his evidence that the photos are not in chronological order.
-
It doesn't state that at all, it's just an index of the court album. He specifically says in his evidence that the photos are not in chronological order.
"You need to study what he says in his transcript about all the photographs he took in the main bedroom before he took 23, which he says was taken after he came out of the bedroom - it was the third photograph after he came out of there (unless you are trying to argue he never said that)"?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2185.0;attach=11962;image)
He had finished taking all his photographs in the main bedroom and he came out onto the landing and photograph 23 was the third picture he took after he came out of the bedroom, yet the schedule does not show that he took any photographs inside the bedroom before he took photograph 23 - do you comprehend?
-
"You need to study what he says in his transcript about all the photographs he took in the main bedroom before he took 23, which he says was taken after he came out of the bedroom - it was the third photograph after he came out of there (unless you are trying to argue he never said that)"?
No he did say that, but I'm missing what your point is.
-
No he did say that, but I'm missing what your point is.
My point is a relatively simple but effective one - we have an INDEX for the 50 "COURT ALBUM" photographs, a schedule produced by COLP as part of its 1991 investigation, which shows that no photographs were taken showing any views inside the main bedroom, before photographs 23 was taken, which contradicts what PC Bird said in his testimony during the trial in October 1986, where he claims he took all his photographs inside the main bedroom before he took photograph 23 from the vantage point of the middle landing on the main stairs - how can / could such a major discrepancy occur between both sources, kif PC Bird was / is telling the truth, and the COLP investigation into these matters was an honest one?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2345.0;attach=11912;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2345.0;attach=11913;image)
-
My point is a relatively simple but effective one - we have an INDEX for the 50 "COURT ALBUM" photographs, a schedule produced by COLP as part of its 1991 investigation, which shows that no photographs were taken showing any views inside the main bedroom, before photographs 23 was taken, which contradicts what PC Bird said in his testimony during the trial in October 1986, where he claims he took all his photographs inside the main bedroom before he took photograph 23 from the vantage point of the middle landing on the main stairs - how can / could such a major discrepancy occur between both sources, kif PC Bird was / is telling the truth, and the COLP investigation into these matters was an honest one?
That document you keep posting is not a chronological schedule, it's just an index to the court album. Are you posting the right thing?
-
We can argue about semantics but I accept your correction. The wider point was that Jeremy felt abandoned by his parents when they sent him to Gresham's at a time when he may most have needed their love. As Sheila is reported as saying,she and her brother had all the trappings of childhood with presents at birthdays and Christmas but no hugs or outward signs of affection,which is why ultimately Jeremy could feel no remorse for what he did.
It must be pointed out that Jeremy's "real" father has abandoned him. This I will never do. I will never abandon my own children. What a discusting excuse for a man he is. To abandon your own son.
-
That document you keep posting is not a chronological schedule, it's just an index to the court album. Are you posting the right thing?
There is no true chronological schedule showing when all 581 photographs were taken, Essex police refuse to disclose it - it's withheld under pii, but I do have another schedule which relates to the so called (wrongly named) "MASTER COPY ALBUM" (223) which also gives the corresponding photographs contained in the "COURT ALBUM" (50), which is worthless without the full schedule relating to the (581) photographs contained in the "SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM"...
-
That document you keep posting is not a chronological schedule, it's just an index to the court album. Are you posting the right thing?
"Bingo"...
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2345.0;attach=11912;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2345.0;attach=11913;image)
"So, now all you need to do, is compare what PC Bird said during his trial testimony, and see if you can make any sense or head nor tail of his evidence"?
An index to the 50 photographs contained in the "COURT ALBUM" available to the jury...
What more do I need to say?
However...
it is clear from reference to this index of the 50 "COURT ALBUM" photographs (reproduced, above), that PC Bird did not take any pictures of Sheila in the bedroom, until after he took photographs 23 which shows the rifle leaning up against the bedroom window, and that the very first picture he took with Sheila in it, was photographs 26, onwards...
-
The man you are all describing is a monster who has convinced himself over the course of twenty seven years when everyone else has been getting on with their lives that he hasn't done it. Do you seriously expect me to believe that Jeremy Bamber talks to his victims inside his head from his prison cell every day and takes solace from the maxims of his father,a man who was not his real father and who was disappointed at the very least in him because he did not fit into his idea of a son?It's high time Jeremy came clean in this case and admitted that he went through a phase as a young man bordering on sociopathy towards his adopted family,who may well for a man of limited intellect been difficult to live with. He should apologize to Colin and the other relatives and apologize to the criminal justice system for wasting so much Police time. He won't yet because he still has too much to lose and is clinging on in the vain hope that sometimes convictions are quashed when a guilty man persists in maintaining his innocence,such as the wife who asked by her husband to write suicide notes and was found a short time later hanging by the neck in the family garage.
You don´t have children to fit into your idea of how they should be! You accept and love your children no matter how they turn out! Outrageous - I hope that was not the case, but maybe it was.
And while I am stopping by, Bridget, you cannot be serrious about that rifle not being moved - it is so obvious! I think you know it too.
-
"Bingo"...
"So, now all you need to do, is compare what PC Bird said during his trial testimony, and see if you can make any sense or head nor tail of his evidence"?
An index to the 50 photographs contained in the "COURT ALBUM" available to the jury...
What more do I need to say?
However...
it is clear from reference to this index of the 50 "COURT ALBUM" photographs (reproduced, above), that PC Bird did not take any pictures of Sheila in the bedroom, until after he took photographs 23 which shows the rifle leaning up against the bedroom window, and that the very first picture he took with Sheila in it, was photographs 26, onwards...
The index is not in chronological order. In his evidence he said that photograph 23 was taken after the photos taken in the main bedroom, which as you state, were 26 through to 40 something. You can of course be of the opinion that he's lying, but this index does nothing to support that view.
-
You don´t have children to fit into your idea of how they should be! You accept and love your children no matter how they turn out! Outrageous - I hope that was not the case, but maybe it was.
And while I am stopping by, Bridget, you cannot be serrious about that rifle not being moved - it is so obvious! I think you know it too.
Of course I'm serious.
-
The index is not in chronological order. In his evidence he said that photograph 23 was taken after the photos taken in the main bedroom, which as you state, were 26 through to 40 something. You can of course be of the opinion that he's lying, but this index does nothing to support that view.
You are losing the plot, the point I am making is that if PC Bird told the truth when he testified, why did COLP produce this schedule of the 50 "COURT ALBUM" photographs showing that he took no such photographs of Sheila at all in the bedroom, until after he took photograph 23? Why would or how could an investigating force which was looking into these matters, make such a huge blunder about the order in which PC Bird took his photographs? How could they produce a schedule (above) which suggests that he took photograph 23 first, then he took pictures of Sheila in the bedroom?
Something is very wrong here, somebodies lying and falsifying evidence, you decide who that someone is, PC Bird, cannot be telling the truth, if the index for the 50 "COURT ALBUM" which was produced by COLP is accurate, or vice versa...
If you can't or don't understand what I am talking about, then all I can say is there is no hope for you, since nothing could be any clearer not even to a child at primary school...
-
"Bingo"...
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2345.0;attach=11912;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2345.0;attach=11913;image)
"So, now all you need to do, is compare what PC Bird said during his trial testimony, and see if you can make any sense or head nor tail of his evidence"?
An index to the 50 photographs contained in the "COURT ALBUM" available to the jury...
I invite anyone to prove that PC Bird took any photographs of Sheila in the bedroom, before he took photograph 23, by reference to this schedule:-
If anyone succeeds, please let me and everybody else know as soon as possible (I look forward to never hearing from anybody at all, not ever, because you can't build a fantasy into the detail of this indexed schedule to make it fit in with the claim that PC Bird took pictures of Sheila in the main bedroom before he took photograph 23
-
You are losing the plot, the point I am making is that if PC Bird told the truth when he testified, why did COLP produce this schedule of the 50 "COURT ALBUM" photographs showing that he took no such photographs of Sheila at all in the bedroom, until after he took photograph 23? Why would or how could an investigating force which was looking into these matters, make such a huge blunder about the order in which PC Bird took his photographs? How could they produce a schedule (above) which suggests that he took photograph 23 first, then he took pictures of Sheila in the bedroom?
Something is very wrong here, somebodies lying and falsifying evidence, you decide who that someone is, PC Bird, cannot be telling the truth, if the index for the 50 "COURT ALBUM" which was produced by COLP is accurate, or vice versa...
If you can't or don't understand what I am talking about, then all I can say is there is no hope for you, since nothing could be any clearer not even to a child at primary school...
I probably am losing the plot...
The thing you keep calling the COLP schedule does not show the order the photographs were taken in, it shows the order they were included in the court album, which we know is not the order in which they were taken. You cannot therefore look at the COLP 'schedule' and determine what order the photos were taken in.
-
PC Bird, produced a schedule of his own, showing which of the 223 "MASTER COPY ALBUM" photographs, were made into the 50 "COURT ALBUM" photographs:-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1237.0;attach=6270;image)(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1237.0;attach=6271;image)(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1237.0;attach=6272;image)
Lets reproduce of our own, a schedule based on the information contained in the above, to see which photographs from the "MASTER COPY ALBUM" were made up into the 50 "COURT ALBUM" pictures:-
"COURT ALBUM" photographs listed first (1 to 50), followed by the corresponding numbers, from the "MASTER COPY" album:-
(01) - 4A (taken on 11th September 1985)
(02) - 14 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(03) - 220 (taken on 26th November 1985)
(04) - 20 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(05) - 21 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(06) - 24 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(07) - 26 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(08) - 23 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(09) - 151 (taken on 12th September 1985)
(10) - 25 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(11) - 20A (taken on 7th August 1985)
(12) - 134 (taken on 11th September 1985)
(13) - 27 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(14) - 28 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(15) - 29 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(16) - 30 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(17) - 31 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(18) - 32 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(19) - 39 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(20) - 40 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(21) - 214 (taken on 1st October 1985)
(22) - 58 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(23) - 59 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(24) - 62 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(25) - 63 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(26) - 64 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(27) - 68 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(28) - 68A (taken on 7th August 1985)
(29) - 69 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(30) - 70 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(31) - 71 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(32) - 72 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(33) - 73 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(34) - 78 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(35) - 77 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(36) - 74 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(37) - 75 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(38) - 76 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(39) - 67 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(40) - 82A (taken on 7th August 1985)
(41) - 82 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(42) - 83 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(43) - 81 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(44) - 85 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(45) - 84 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(46) - 87 (taken on 8th August 1985)
(47) - 88 (taken on 8th August 1985)
(48) - 90 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(49) - 102 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(50) - 103 (taken on 7th August 1985)
-
Can you post the missing page (37 - 77)?
-
Forget that, I see it's gone off the side. Interesting that photo 23 is MCA 59, 27 is MCA 68 and 32 is MCA 72, because I would expect the MCA numbers to be chronological. You may have something there.
-
Of course I'm serious.
It's worrying that you are Bridget. As it looks like pure stubbornness against the obvious. It's obvious to both sets of posters.
-
It's worrying that you are Bridget. As it looks like pure stubbornness against the obvious. It's obvious to both sets of posters.
You know what Roch? I really don't care how many people join the flock to disagree, I'm used to it. I'm also completely confident that the 'gun moving' theory will never get anywhere, because a simple test disproves it. I know because I did it.
-
You know what Roch? I really don't care how many people join the flock to disagree, I'm used to it. I'm also completely confident that the 'gun moving' theory will never get anywhere, because a simple test disproves it. I know because I did it.
Thats what I like. A person who doesn't let the facts stand in the way no matter what. ;)
-
You know what Roch? I really don't care how many people join the flock to disagree, I'm used to it. I'm also completely confident that the 'gun moving' theory will never get anywhere, because a simple test disproves it. I know because I did it.
So you've had somebody stand over the top of you to check? You are not supported by a single poster from your own side because the difference is that obvious. You think your bloodymindedness assists you but at times it simply does not. The next step up from jam jars is the hubble telescope.
-
So you've had somebody stand over the top of you to check? You are not supported by a single poster from your own side because the difference is that obvious. You think your bloodymindedness assists you but at times it simply does not. The next step up from jam jars is the hubble telescope.
No, actually I had someone else lay down while I checked. Making it personal does you no favours either Roch.
-
No, actually I had someone else lay down while I checked. Making it personal does you no favours either Roch.
Ok, apologies for making it personal. Tell us all about your experiment. I'll try it at work this week.
-
Forget that, I see it's gone off the side. Interesting that photo 23 is MCA 59, 27 is MCA 68 and 32 is MCA 72, because I would expect the MCA numbers to be chronological. You may have something there.
What do you think he may have ?
-
Ok, apologies for making it personal. Tell us all about your experiment. I'll try it at work this week.
I already have, several times.
-
I already have, several times.
I'll have to check your posts then.
-
What do you think he may have ?
Actually looking at it again I can't tell if he has anything, but I'll look again tomorrow. I was thinking that the master copy album references would be broadly in chronological order, but it seems that they aren't either.
-
We need to compare the details in PC Birds Schedule (below) with the INDEX schedule produced by COLP for the 50 "COURT ALBUM" photographs to see if they correspond to the same set of photographs:-
"COURT ALBUM" photographs listed first (1 to 50), followed by the corresponding numbers, from the "MASTER COPY" album:-
(01) - 4A (taken on 11th September 1985)
(02) - 14 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(03) - 220 (taken on 26th November 1985)
(04) - 20 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(05) - 21 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(06) - 24 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(07) - 26 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(08) - 23 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(09) - 151 (taken on 12th September 1985)
(10) - 25 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(11) - 20A (taken on 7th August 1985)
(12) - 134 (taken on 11th September 1985)
(13) - 27 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(14) - 28 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(15) - 29 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(16) - 30 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(17) - 31 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(18) - 32 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(19) - 39 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(20) - 40 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(21) - 214 (taken on 1st October 1985)
(22) - 58 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(23) - 59 (taken on 7th August 1985)
-----------------------------------------------------
(24) - 62 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(25) - 63 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(26) - 64 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(27) - 68 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(28) - 68A (taken on 7th August 1985)
(29) - 69 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(30) - 70 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(31) - 71 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(32) - 72 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(33) - 73 (taken on 7th August 1985)
--------------------------------------------------------
(34) - 78 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(35) - 77 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(36) - 74 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(37) - 75 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(38) - 76 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(39) - 67 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(40) - 82A (taken on 7th August 1985)
(41) - 82 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(42) - 83 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(43) - 81 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(44) - 85 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(45) - 84 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(46) - 87 (taken on 8th August 1985)
(47) - 88 (taken on 8th August 1985)
(48) - 90 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(49) - 102 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(50) - 103 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2345.0;attach=11912;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2345.0;attach=11913;image)
-
I think we can safely say, that the schedule produced by PC Bird himself, showing which of the 223 "MASTER COPY ALBUM" photographs were chosen to go into the "COURT ALBUM" matches exactly the schedule produced by COLP as part of its 1991 - 92 investigation, but that these do not correspond with the evidence / testimony given by PC Bird during Jeremy's trial...
"COURT ALBUM" photographs listed first (1 to 50), followed by the corresponding numbers, from the "MASTER COPY" album:-
(01) - 4A (taken on 11th September 1985)
(02) - 14 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(03) - 220 (taken on 26th November 1985)
(04) - 20 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(05) - 21 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(06) - 24 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(07) - 26 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(08) - 23 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(09) - 151 (taken on 12th September 1985)
(10) - 25 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(11) - 20A (taken on 7th August 1985)
(12) - 134 (taken on 11th September 1985)
(13) - 27 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(14) - 28 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(15) - 29 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(16) - 30 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(17) - 31 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(18) - 32 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(19) - 39 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(20) - 40 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(21) - 214 (taken on 1st October 1985)
(22) - 58 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(23) - 59 (taken on 7th August 1985)
-----------------------------------------------------
(24) - 62 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(25) - 63 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(26) - 64 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(27) - 68 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(28) - 68A (taken on 7th August 1985)
(29) - 69 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(30) - 70 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(31) - 71 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(32) - 72 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(33) - 73 (taken on 7th August 1985)
--------------------------------------------------------
(34) - 78 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(35) - 77 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(36) - 74 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(37) - 75 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(38) - 76 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(39) - 67 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(40) - 82A (taken on 7th August 1985)
(41) - 82 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(42) - 83 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(43) - 81 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(44) - 85 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(45) - 84 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(46) - 87 (taken on 8th August 1985)
(47) - 88 (taken on 8th August 1985)
(48) - 90 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(49) - 102 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(50) - 103 (taken on 7th August 1985)
-
I think we can safely say, that the schedule produced by PC Bird himself, showing which of the 223 "MASTER COPY ALBUM" photographs were chosen to go into the "COURT ALBUM" matches exactly the schedule produced by COLP as part of its 1991 - 92 investigation, but that these do not correspond with the evidence / testimony given by PC Bird during Jeremy's trial...
Was PC Bird referring to a different photographic schedule (for example, "SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM", containing no fewer than 581 pictures) that has never yet been disclosed? I am drawn to this conclusion, because by reference to his own schedule, and that which was produced by COLP (1991), non of the photographs taken of Sheila were taken until after PC Bird took photographs 23 from the vantage point of the middle landing of the main stairs, but he testified during the trial that such photographs had been taken of Sheila in the main bedroom before he took 23 - but which 23 was he referring to when he testified, 23 from the "SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM", or 23 from the "MASTER COPY ALBUM" or 23 from the "COURT ALBUM"?
We have copies of the schedule for photographs listed in both the "MASTER COPY" and "the "COURT ALBUM", yet nothing relating to the "SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM", but PC Bird obviously had access to that information when he testified, and he could have been leaping from one source to another and so on and so forth, which served to confuse the minds of the jury and everyone alike?
-
Can you post the missing page (37 - 77)?
37 was taken in the main bedroom after index number 38....38, 37...thats the order I believe...
Index number 25 onwards 34,35,31,33,27,37,42,22,26,32,29,38,37 are cross referenced to the index...This follows on from the photo's that were taken in dairy...After that I am lost....
Some of the photo's were not taken by Bird...Many more photo's were not produced at court.... :) :) :)
-
37 was taken in the main bedroom after index number 38....38, 37...thats the order I believe...
Index number 25 onwards 34,35,31,33,27,37,42,22,26,32,29,38,37 are cross referenced to the index...This follows on from the photo's that were taken in dairy...After that I am lost....
Some of the photo's were not taken by Bird...Many more photo's were not produced at court.... :) :) :)
Imagine how lost and confused the jury must have been having to try to deal with all this?
-
Imagine how lost and confused the jury must have been having to try to deal with all this?
How complicated is that? I doubt anyone could understand it Mike....Didn't they make it difficult....Some senior said....we will put the photo's in subject order..eh? What a mess!
Anyway, thank you Mike for letting us have all this info...But I am whacked....So good night to you and all... :) :) :)
-
How complicated is that? I doubt anyone could understand it Mike....Didn't they make it difficult....Some senior said....we will put the photo's in subject order..eh? What a mess!
Anyway, thank you Mike for letting us have all this info...But I am whacked....So good night to you and all... :) :) :)
A well earned break lil columbo for your last few days postings!
-
Was PC Bird referring to a different photographic schedule (for example, "SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM", containing no fewer than 581 pictures) that has never yet been disclosed? I am drawn to this conclusion, because by reference to his own schedule, and that which was produced by COLP (1991), non of the photographs taken of Sheila were taken until after PC Bird took photographs 23 from the vantage point of the middle landing of the main stairs, but he testified during the trial that such photographs had been taken of Sheila in the main bedroom before he took 23 - but which 23 was he referring to when he testified, 23 from the "SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM", or 23 from the "MASTER COPY ALBUM" or 23 from the "COURT ALBUM"?
We have copies of the schedule for photographs listed in both the "MASTER COPY" and "the "COURT ALBUM", yet nothing relating to the "SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM", but PC Bird obviously had access to that information when he testified, and he could have been leaping from one source to another and so on and so forth, which served to confuse the minds of the jury and everyone alike?
What becomes clear, by reference to PC Birds double schedule which sets out the photographs which form part of the "MASTER COPY ALBUM" (223) and the corresponding "COURT ALBUM" (50), is that there were / are two photographs referred to in that schedule by the reference number 23?
"Namely, photograph 8 in the "COURT ALBUM" appears to have been photograph 23 from the "MASTER COPY ALBUM" and photograph 23 in the "COURT ALBUM" appears to have been photograph 59 in the "MASTER COPY ALBUM"...
(08) - 23 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(23) - 59 (taken on 7th August 1985)
If for one moment we refer to these different photographic schedules as systems, where the "SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM" (581) is system (1), the "MASTER COPY ALBUM" (223) is system (2), and the "COURT ALBUM" (50) is system (3), how do we know which system (1, 2, or 3) PC Bird was referring to when he testified during Jeremy's trial, especially so because no-one other than the police and the DPP knew that system (1) existed?
-
What becomes clear, by reference to PC Birds double schedule which sets out the photographs which form part of the "MASTER COPY ALBUM" (223) and the corresponding "COURT ALBUM" (50), is that there were / are two photographs referred to in that schedule by the reference number 23?
"Namely, photograph 8 in the "COURT ALBUM" appears to have been photograph 23 from the "MASTER COPY ALBUM" and photograph 23 in the "COURT ALBUM" appears to have been photograph 59 in the "MASTER COPY ALBUM"...
(08) - 23 (taken on 7th August 1985)
(23) - 59 (taken on 7th August 1985)
If for one moment we refer to these different photographic schedules as systems, where the "SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM" (581) is system (1), the "MASTER COPY ALBUM" (223) is system (2), and the "COURT ALBUM" (50) is system (3), how do we know which system (1, 2, or 3) PC Bird was referring to when he testified during Jeremy's trial, especially so because no-one other than the police and the DPP knew that system (1) existed?
Why did PC Bird testify during Jeremy's trial in October 1986, to the effect that pictures of Sheila in the bedroom were taken before he took photograph 23 ( a picture that he took from the vantage point of the middle landing of the main stairs which shows the rifle leaning against the bedroom window) which contradicts the information in systems (2) and (3), where it becomes clear by reference to those systems that he did not take any photographs of Sheila in the bedroom, until after he had taken photograph 23 (described above)?
-
Why did PC Bird testify during Jeremy's trial in October 1986, to the effect that pictures of Sheila in the bedroom were taken before he took photograph 23 ( a picture that he took from the vantage point of the middle landing of the main stairs which shows the rifle leaning against the bedroom window) which contradicts the information in systems (2) and (3), where it becomes clear by reference to those systems that he did not take any photographs of Sheila in the bedroom, until after he had taken photograph 23 (described above)?
The only possible explanation I can think of for him saying what he said (which contradicts the content of systems (2) and (3)), is that he was relying upon information and detail contained in system (1) which was not made available to the defence, or to the court which was trying the matter? Also, what becomes apparent is that in system (1) there was information which suggests that PC Bird did take photographs of Sheila's body in the bedroom before he took photograph 23 (as described above), but for one reason or another the police and the DPP did not want the defence or the court to know what the contents of system (1) were, was, or is?
This allows us to draw certain undeniable, unchallengeable, inferences, from all this information contained between and in systems (3), (2), and (1), namely that the police have deceived everyone about when certain photographs relating to Sheila's body in the bedroom were taken, and at the heart of this matter was / is the point when PC Bird took photographs 23 from the vantage point of the middle landing on the main stairs, which shows the rifle that fired the fatal bullet under Sheila's chin that killed her, was resting against the bedroom window...
Now...
All that needs to be identified, is which photographs of Sheila in the bedroom were taken before PC Bird took 23, and which were taken afterwards? Why did PC Bird visit the main bedroom twice and take two lots of pictures of Sheila? One lot before he took 23, and another lot after he took 23? If we rely upon the contents of system (2) and (3), photographs 27 and 32, were not taken until after PC Bird took photograph 23, and no other photographs existed, or have been disclosed, before he took 23. This then raise the question why did Essex police not produce a schedule showing the order with which the 581 photographs contained in the "SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM" were taken? This is a significant feature of the case which I believe could open the door for the truth to be revealed concerning how Sheila died in the bedroom inside whf after she was shot under the chin by use of the rifle from the bedroom window, by a police officer at around 9:30am...
Any photographs which could possibly have been taken of Sheila in the main bedroom before PC Bird took photographs 23, can only be listed in system (1), because they certainly do not exist at all in systems (2) and (3)...
-
It's a paradox - PC Bird took photographs of Sheila in the bedroom, after he took photograph 23 (by a reliance on systems 2 and 3), as described above, and non were taken beforehand, and PC Bird took photographs of Sheila in the bedroom before he took photographs 23, which are the same photographs mentioned above, described in systems (2) and (3)?
-
It's a paradox - PC Bird took photographs of Sheila in the bedroom, after he took photograph 23 (by a reliance on systems 2 and 3), as described above, and non were taken beforehand, and PC Bird took photographs of Sheila in the bedroom before he took photographs 23, which are the same photographs mentioned above, described in systems (2) and (3)?
However...
When you know that police took pictures of Sheila on the bed, and that they moved her to the bedroom floor, and that the rifle which was spotted by WPC Julia Jeapes leaning against the bedroom window some 15 minutes, or so, before the raid team set foot into the farmhouse (around 7:30am) had / has fired the fatal bullet (PV/19), under Sheila's chin, it becomes possible to understand/visualize which photographs were taken before PC Bird took 23, and which were taken afterwards? Since photographs 27 and 32 could not have been taken before 23 (systems (2) and (3) refer), some other as yet undisclosed pictures must have been and were taken beforehand - photographs which Essex police, and the DPP, and all the BIGB, do not want Bamber, or the courts, or the general public at large to be given access to, or made aware of them...
Lets put it as simply as I can, either side of photograph 23 being taken by PC Bird, he took a series of photographs, before, and after, that picture (23). Sheila was on the bed before he took 23, and on the floor after he took 23. Proof which supports this is contained in his testimony from the trial, and in the schedules (2) and (3) already identified. If I throw in the copy image of Sheila on the bed, the picture is complete...
Game over, or what...
-
Before that comes to fruition, however, perhaps it might be worth looking more closely at another indexed schedule produced by the COLP INVESTIGATION, relating specifically to all photographs taken by Essex police relating to this investigation:-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1237.0;attach=6275;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1237.0;attach=6276;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1237.0;attach=6277;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1237.0;attach=6278;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1237.0;attach=6279;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1237.0;attach=6290;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1237.0;attach=6291;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1237.0;attach=6292;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1237.0;attach=6293;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1237.0;attach=6294;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1237.0;attach=6295;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1237.0;attach=6296;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1237.0;attach=6297;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1237.0;attach=6298;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1237.0;attach=6299;image)
"Blank spaces where detail has been edited out, and another photgraphic album not copied"?
-
I don't know if this is relevant, but they are referring to two albums in the court transcript of Bird's evidence. The 'green' one, which is what you have been referring to as court album (50) and also a grey one which seems to have at least 26 photos.
-
I don't know if this is relevant, but they are referring to two albums in the court transcript of Bird's evidence. The 'green' one, which is what you have been referring to as court album (50) and also a grey one which seems to have at least 26 photos.
same album with different coloured divides, I think, separating crime scene photographs, from ones taken at mortuary, and elsewhere, etc...
-
same album with different coloured divides, I think, separating crime scene photographs, from ones taken at mortuary, and elsewhere, etc...
You might be right about the dividers, but the 50 photos we've been discussing make up the green one, then there are at least 26 photos in the grey one. In the green one photo 23 is the view of the rifle through the door, in the grey one it's a shot of the gun cupboard. Similarly, 26 in the green is Sheila and June, and in the grey 26 is the bike. The mortuary photos seeem to be in yet another one called exhibit 28.
-
You might be right about the dividers, but the 50 photos we've been discussing make up the green one, then there are at least 26 photos in the grey one. In the green one photo 23 is the view of the rifle through the door, in the grey one it's a shot of the gun cupboard. Similarly, 26 in the green is Sheila and June, and in the grey 26 is the bike. The mortuary photos seeem to be in yet another one called exhibit 28.
Yeah, photographs, inside different coloured dividers, for use as part of prosecutions case, to support different features of their case - divide and conquer, that is what they did, they produced all these different albums, some without indexed referencing, to help them cover up for the other far more crucial images which they deliberately kept back from everyone - and I am talking of withheld photographs totalling 358, not disclosed or mentioned at all in either system (2) and or (3) schedules...
-
Yeah, photographs, inside different coloured dividers, for use as part of prosecutions case, to support different features of their case - divide and conquer, that is what they did, they produced all these different albums, some without indexed referencing, to help them cover up for the other far more crucial images which they deliberately kept back from everyone - and I am talking of withheld photographs totalling 358, not disclosed or mentioned at all in either system (2) and or (3) schedules...
All the jury had were access to the 50 preselected photographs which were made up into the "COURT ALBUM" whilst the prosecution had all these different albums, with photographs included behind coloured divides, and access to the photographic negatives (not exhibited for obvious reasons) - jury had no chance of understanding the significance of the photographs being spoken about during the trial, it was impossible for them to follow and understand what took place, or even to suspect that police had tampered with the photographs taken at the scene, before 23 was taken, or afterwards...
-
By reference to the "Stokenchurch registration schedule" (above) we now know that photograph 23 was taken before any pictures of Sheila were taken in the bedroom, which contradicts the testimony given by PC Bird during Jeremy's trial, where he stated that he took 23 after he had finished taking photographs in the main bedroom. According to the Stokenchurch schedule, photograph 23 was one taken showing an interior view of whf, which was taken before the first photograph of June Bamber (25) was taken inside the bedroom in question? According to PC Birds sworn testimony, photograph 23 was the third picture he took after he left the main bedroom, but by reference to the Stokenchurch schedule, the third photograph taken after he left the bedroom, was photograph 41 (last photograph taken in bedroom was of June Bamber, numbered 38)...
We therefore have many different possibilities regarding at what position in the grand sequence of events, that the photograph which PC Bird took from the vantage point of the middle landing of the main stairs, showing a view into the bedroom with the rifle leaning up against the bedroom window, or at what stage it was taken at:-
08 - ?
23 - ?
41 - ?
59 - ?
How the hell could anyone be expected to know which reference, in which schedule, or system, PC Bird was referring to, when he testified, regarding the taking of the aforementioned photograph (23), and where in relation to this picture, other pictures he took of Sheila were / had been taken, before or after he took 23 ?
-
By reference to the "Stokenchurch registration schedule" (above) we now know that photograph 23 was taken before any pictures of Sheila were taken in the bedroom, which contradicts the testimony given by PC Bird during Jeremy's trial, where he stated that he took 23 after he had finished taking photographs in the main bedroom. According to the Stokenchurch schedule, photograph 23 was one taken showing an interior view of whf, which was taken before the first photograph of June Bamber (25) was taken inside the bedroom in question? According to PC Birds sworn testimony, photograph 23 was the third picture he took after he left the main bedroom, but by reference to the Stokenchurch schedule, the third photograph taken after he left the bedroom, was photograph 41 (last photograph taken in bedroom was of June Bamber, numbered 38)...
We therefore have many different possibilities regarding at what position in the grand sequence of events, that the photograph which PC Bird took from the vantage point of the middle landing of the main stairs, showing a view into the bedroom with the rifle leaning up against the bedroom window, or at what stage it was taken at:-
08 - ?
23 - ?
41 - ?
59 - ?
How the hell could anyone be expected to know which reference, in which schedule, or system, PC Bird was referring to, when he testified, regarding the taking of the aforementioned photograph (23), and where in relation to this picture, other pictures he took of Sheila were / had been taken, before or after he took 23 ?
Based on information contained in PC Birds own schedules (systems 2 / 3), and also by reference to the Stokenchurch registration schedule, PC Bird did not take any photographs of Sheila or June Bamber in the bedroom before he took photograph 23 from the vantage point of the middle landing which showed the rifle that killed Sheila leaning up against the main bedroom window (FACT)...
So...
This brings us back to the full schedule which is missing for the "SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM" (581) which contained information and evidence that PC Bird did take such photographs at the scene, before he took photograph 23? It is these missing photographs, which are of particular interest which will help to prove that Jeremy Bamber did not, and could not have shot his sister by use of the anshulz rifle which was leaning up against the bedroom window before the raid team set foot inside whf that morning...
PC Bird needs to be arrested and interviewed under caution about these matters, because he has committed perjury at Jeremy's trial, and is responsible (with others) for perverting the course of justice, and forgery offences...
-
Based on information contained in PC Birds own schedules (systems 2 / 3), and also by reference to the Stokenchurch registration schedule, PC Bird did not take any photographs of Sheila or June Bamber in the bedroom before he took photograph 23 from the vantage point of the middle landing which showed the rifle that killed Sheila leaning up against the main bedroom window (FACT)...
So...
This brings us back to the full schedule which is missing for the "SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM" (581) which contained information and evidence that PC Bird did take such photographs at the scene, before he took photograph 23? It is these missing photographs, which are of particular interest which will help to prove that Jeremy Bamber did not, and could not have shot his sister by use of the anshulz rifle which was leaning up against the bedroom window before the raid team set foot inside whf that morning...
PC Bird needs to be arrested and interviewed under caution about these matters, because he has committed perjury at Jeremy's trial, and is responsible (with others) for perverting the course of justice, and forgery offences...
Missing photographs which PC Bird took of Sheila on the bed, with only a solitary wound on her throat, are the ones he took before he took photograph 23, which show the rifle that fired the fatal bullet (PV/19) that killed her to be resting against the window. This is evidence which helps to prove that a policeman shot and killed Sheila as a result of that rifle being taken from the window and placed on her body at a time when it was still loaded with ammunition, and whilst the barrel was being manipulated beneath her chin and the fingers of her right hand were being adjusted upon and around the trigger mechanism, "BANG", she was killed...
-
Missing photographs which PC Bird took of Sheila on the bed, with only a solitary wound on her throat, are the ones he took before he took photograph 23, which show the rifle that fired the fatal bullet (PV/19) that killed her to be resting against the window. This is evidence which helps to prove that a policeman shot and killed Sheila as a result of that rifle being taken from the window and placed on her body at a time when it was still loaded with ammunition, and whilst the barrel was being manipulated beneath her chin and the fingers of her right hand were being adjusted upon and around the trigger mechanism, "BANG", she was killed...
Police then moved Sheila's body to the floor, and PC Bird waited around after taking an initial photograph of the wet looking blood running, leaking and pouring from the sides of her mouth etc, using a zoom facility to take such a picture, then he had to wait until the blood had congealed before taking unzoomed photographs (27 to 32) showing the same (distant) view (Camera was sat upon a tripod all the while) from slightly different or adjusted positions or angle...
-
Police then moved Sheila's body to the floor, and PC Bird waited around after taking an initial photograph of the wet looking blood running, leaking and pouring from the sides of her mouth etc, using a zoom facility to take such a picture, then he had to wait until the blood had congealed before taking unzoomed photographs (27 to 32) showing the same (distant) view (Camera was sat upon a tripod all the while) from slightly different or adjusted positions or angle...
Yup perfectly plausible Mike,
Now can you please post the photo of her lying on the bed. If not, what is the point in mentioning something for which you cannot produce the evidence for? I dont get it?
-
Non of the photographic schedules (or systems) disclosed, or posted, show evidence that PC Bird took any photographs of Sheila in the bedroom with the anshulz rifle upon her body, before he took photograph 23, which shows the very same rifle that killed Sheila resting against the bedroom window, from the vantage point of the middle landing of the main stairs - all the evidence points to him taking pictures of the rifle on Sheila's body, after he took 23 of the rifle off the body. The implications for this being true are enormousness and cannot easily be dismissed, not by Essex police, not by the DPP / CPS, not by the CCRC, not by the Judiciary, not by the Home Secretary, not by anyone who has an ounce of grey matter between their ear-lugs...
In a nutshell, then, rifle was taken from its resting place of resting against the bedroom window, and "BOOM", it fired the fatal bullet (PV/19) that effectively killed Sheila. If this is / was true, Sheila did not commit suicide, and neither did or could Jeremy have killed her either - but the police did...
Go here and play this:-
(1) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEhy-RXkNo0
-
Anyone who doubts what I am saying about there being "no evidence" contained in the photographic schedules (or systems 2 and 3) to support the contention/assertion made by PC Bird when he testified during Jeremy's trial, that he took pictures of Sheila in the bedroom before he took photograph 23 of the rifle leaning up against the bedroom window, should point me in the right direction and show me evidence which contradicts what I am saying? No such evidence exists because what I am saying and what I have been saying all along is true - I know you don't like to hear it, but police shot Sheila with the rifle leaning at the bedroom window (23) after PC Bird photographed the rifle there in that position / location...
Show me where in any of the schedules that relate to the taking of crime scene photographs does it indicate that PC Bird took any pictures of Sheila with the rifle on her body before he took photograph 23 which shows the rifle that fired the fatal bullet that killed Sheila resting against the bedroom window?
You can't, nobody can, because Sheila was shot and killed by use of that rifle after it was photographed at the bedroom window (23)...
Evidence has been falsified to cover up the circumstances of exactly how Sheila ended up being shot dead in the bedroom, and police blamed Jeremy for doing what they themselves did, and have done - and the evidence for proving what they did and what they have done lies somewhere between what PC Bird said during his trial testimony, and the contents of the disclosed photographic schedules, one of which was produced by PC Bird, himself...
I arrest my case...
-
Nope, sorry but the first 50 photographs listed in the Stokenchurch schedule match the court index exactly, except that photo 10 is missing. So that list is just a list of photos as they appear in the court album, and isn't in chronological order either.
The only evidence that could possibly refute Bird's testimony is the negatives themselves, from which he appeared to be working out the order in which the photos were taken. Maybe there is a contact sheet for them?
-
Nope, sorry but the first 50 photographs listed in the Stokenchurch schedule match the court index exactly, except that photo 10 is missing. So that list is just a list of photos as they appear in the court album, and isn't in chronological order either.
The only evidence that could possibly refute Bird's testimony is the negatives themselves, from which he appeared to be working out the order in which the photos were taken. Maybe there is a contact sheet for them?
There wasn't until recently and i think Mr Sutherst has been dealing with that, but guess what, some negative strips have been cut up into individual negatives and I think 7 or 8 negatives are unaccounted for at the time PC Bird was taking pictures of Sheila's body in the bedroom?
-
Missing photographs which PC Bird took of Sheila on the bed, with only a solitary wound on her throat, are the ones he took before he took photograph 23, which show the rifle that fired the fatal bullet (PV/19) that killed her to be resting against the window. This is evidence which helps to prove that a policeman shot and killed Sheila as a result of that rifle being taken from the window and placed on her body at a time when it was still loaded with ammunition, and whilst the barrel was being manipulated beneath her chin and the fingers of her right hand were being adjusted upon and around the trigger mechanism, "BANG", she was killed...
According to Andrew Hunter's book draft the first shot inflicted on Sheila was done with a sound moderator fitted..
-
According to Andrew Hunter's book draft the first shot inflicted on Sheila was done with a sound moderator fitted..
Fitted to the other rifle found downstairs, the silencer in question was the one DS "Stan" Jones took possession of (SBJ/1) on the morning of the shootings, along with three other exhibits (SBJ/4, SBJ/3 and SBJ/2) - there were two sound moderators (Parker Hale silencers) kept at whf, not one...