Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: mike tesko on August 19, 2012, 08:21:AM
-
In a witness statement made by PC Bird, dated, 19th December 2001, which he made to the COLP investigators, PC Bird had the following to say:-
"On Tuesday the 18th December 2001 (18/12/2001) I assembled a series of photographs relating to white house farm, Tolleshunt D'Arcy, Essex. These photographs have been identified by a serial number for each strip of negative film. I have assembled the photographs from each negative film into three groups in the albums. The first group are in scene order to the best of my recollections, the second are taken by me but not in any particular order, and the final set, to the best of my knowledge were not taken by myself.
The first set contain negative numbers 0020, 0040, 0015, 0034, 0012, 0009, 0037.
The second set contain negative numbers 0023, 0002, 0024, 0039, 0043, 0003, 0021, 0065, 0011, 0014, 0025, 0035, 0028, 0016, 0041, 0033.
The third set contain the negative numbers 0001, 002, 0007, 0006, 0019, 0031, 0036, 0032, 0010, 0030, 0060, 0059, 0018, 0017, 0066, 009, 0026, 0008, 0027, 0005".
-
PC Bird made a further witness statement to the COLP investigators, dated, 21st December 2001:-
"On the 19th December 2001 (19/12/2001), I made a statement in relation to assembling a series of photographs in three groups on 18th December 2001 (18/12/2001). Further to that statement I wish to add the following: the first group was placed in an order which, to the best of my current recollection, the photographs had been taken. All the photographs were then placed in two lever arch folders, with dividers marked with the film serial numbers, described in my previous statement, and separating the prints produced from each uncut film. That process was completed at the request of Alan GOSS, a research officer with the Metropolitan Police murder review group. I have produced the two master folders as DB/100 and DB/101, which I handed to Mr GOSS on 19th December 2001 (19/12/2001). The photographs produced from strips numbered 0020, 0040, 0015, 0034, 0012, 0009, and 0037 were placed, by me, in an order to represent that in which the photographs were originally taken. I now know that order to be incorrect. Upon reviewing the photographs produced from the negative film number 0034, I find that those photographs should be placed in folder DB/100 after those numbered 0012. I have now repositioned the photographs and the numbered order is now, 0020, 0040, 0034, 0015, 0023, 0013, 0009, and 0037".
Looks like something dodgy has been going on her then involving images on the negative strips, numbered 0012, and 0034, why did PC Bird get the order with which these had been taken? Does it have anything at all to do with when the first photographs taken of the rifle upon Sheila's body, either side of photograph 23 (which showed the rifle leaning up against the bedroom window)?
-
Lets now examine the compilation of negative strips used in this process - 10 photographs to each strip of negatives:-
Photograph numbers referred to, may be imaginary...
(PC Birds first version of events (DB/100) as told to COLP on 18th December 2012)...
Negative strip 0020
Photo' number 01
Photo' number 02
Photo' number 03
Photo' number 04
Photo' number 05
Photo' number 06
Photo' number 07
Photo' number 08
Photo' number 09
Photo' number 10
Negative strip 0045
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Negative strip 0015
Photo' number 21
Photo' number 22
Photo' number 23
Photo' number 24
Photo' number 25
Photo' number 26
Photo' number 27
Photo' number 28
Photo' number 29
Photo' number 30
Negative strip 0034
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Negative strip 0012
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Negative strip 0009
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Negative strip 0037
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
-
(PC Birds next version of events (DB/100) as told to COLP on 21st December 2012)...
Photograph numbers referred to, may be imaginary...
Negative strip 0020
Photo' number 01
Photo' number 02
Photo' number 03
Photo' number 04
Photo' number 05
Photo' number 06
Photo' number 07
Photo' number 08
Photo' number 09
Photo' number 10
Negative strip 0040
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Negative strip 0034
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Negative strip 0015
Photo' number 21
Photo' number 22
Photo' number 23
Photo' number 24
Photo' number 25
Photo' number 26
Photo' number 27
Photo' number 28
Photo' number 29
Photo' number 30
Negative strip 0023
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Negative strip 0013
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Negative strip 0009
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Negative strip 0037
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
-
And finally:-
(PC Birds third version of events (DB/100), the order he took photographs at the scene on 7th August 1985, as told to COLP on 21st December 2012)...
Photograph numbers referred to, may be imaginary...
Negative strip 0020
Photo' number 01
Photo' number 02
Photo' number 03
Photo' number 04
Photo' number 05
Photo' number 06
Photo' number 07
Photo' number 08
Photo' number 09
Photo' number 10
Negative strip 0040
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Negative strip 0015
Photo' number 21
Photo' number 22
Photo' number 23
Photo' number 24
Photo' number 25
Photo' number 26
Photo' number 27
Photo' number 28
Photo' number 29
Photo' number 30
Negative strip 0012
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Negative strip 0034
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Negative strip 0009
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Negative strip 0037
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
Photo' number
-
It seems PC Bird was tying himself in knots trying to keep the lid on what he did, by lying about the sequence with which photographs taken by him at the scene were in fact taken at the scene (his testimony during Jeremy's trial, and later). At the centre of this deception was the timing when photograph 23 was taken - at trial he told the court that he had taken this after he took other photographs (27, 28, 32 and 33) of the rifle on Sheila's body in the bedroom, when in reality he took it (23) beforehand...
-
It seems PC Bird was tying himself in knots trying to keep the lid on what he did, by lying about the sequence with which photographs taken by him at the scene were in fact taken at the scene (his testimony during Jeremy's trial, and later). At the centre of this deception was the timing when photograph 23 was taken - at trial he told the court that he had taken this after he took other photographs (27, 28, 32 and 33) of the rifle on Sheila's body in the bedroom, when in reality he took it (23) beforehand...
Perhaps now would be as good a time as any to re-look at what PC Bird said about the order he took the pictures at the scene (inside whf, from 10am, on 7th August 1985) whilst testifying during the trial? It may well prove to be a useful exercise to compare what he said then, to each of the three versions that he told the COLP investigators in December 2001?
I will be away from the site for a couple of hours (or so) this morning...
Play this for now:-
(1) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CMjS_kxqK0
-
It also remains a distinct possibility that other crime scene photographs could have been taken (by PC Bird, or others), and taken out of the equation, altogether...
-
Here are the contents of another witness statement, made to the COLP investigators, by PC Bird, dated, 20th December 2001 (20/12/2001):-
"On Thursday, 19th December 2001 (19/12/2001) I assembled a set of photographs printed from negatives which have been identified by a series of numbers. I have assembled them in the following order, 0050, 0051, 0040, 0045, 0047, 0046, 0049, 0062, 0064, 0061, 0063, 0052, 0053, 0054, 0055, 0056, 0057.
These photographs relate to the WHITEHOUSE FARM, TOLLESHUNT D'ARCY, murders of the BAMBER and CAFFELL families in 1985.
With regard to my previous statement in relation to the two other albums, I produce the album of photographs taken by myself as DB/100. The second album of photographs which have not been identified as being taken by myself as EX. DB/101, finally the post mortem set as EX. DB/103".
-
Here are the contents of another witness statement, made to the COLP investigators, by PC Bird, dated, 20th December 2001 (20/12/2001):-
"On Thursday, 19th December 2001 (19/12/2001) I assembled a set of photographs printed from negatives which have been identified by a series of numbers. I have assembled them in the following order, 0050, 0051, 0040, 0045, 0047, 0046, 0049, 0062, 0064, 0061, 0063, 0052, 0053, 0054, 0055, 0056, 0057.
These photographs relate to the WHITEHOUSE FARM, TOLLESHUNT D'ARCY, murders of the BAMBER and CAFFELL families in 1985.
With regard to my previous statement in relation to the two other albums, I produce the album of photographs taken by myself as DB/100. The second album of photographs which have not been identified as being taken by myself as EX. DB/101, finally the post mortem set as EX. DB/103".
17 negative strips, (0050, 0051, 0040, 0045, 0047, 0046, 0049, 0062, 0064, 0061, 0063, 0052, 0053, 0054, 0055, 0056, and 0057), each strip containing 10 images, making a total of 170 photographs which formed part of album DB/100...
Of particular interest, are the negative strips mentioned here, 0040 and 0045, which also figure in posts, 2, 3, and 4 (above)...
-
Still not yet fully explained, is that despite some 27 years having already elapsed since the time PC Bird took all his photographs in sequence at the scene, there has still not yet been any schedule to show which order all the photographs were taken in, inside whf by him?
-
How does the information provided here by PC Bird (himself) fit in with the existence of 581 photographs contained in the SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM, or the 223 photographs contained in the MASTER COPY ALBUM, or the 50 photographs which formed part of the COURT ALBUM?
-
You then have the examination of the disclosed negatives by Mr Sutherst, who discovers that 8 negatives are missing from around the time that PC Bird started to take photographs of Sheila's body in the bedroom - what is not yet clear, is whether these have since gone missing after the three albums ( SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM, MASTER COPY ALBUM, and COURT ALBUM), came into existence, or if they were cut out and disposed of beforehand?
How could the jury be satisfied about the claim that PC Bird took photograph 23 after he had already taken photographs (27, 28, 32 and 33) which show the rifle a top Sheila's body, if the very records upon which PC Bird relied upon whilst testifying were not made available to the court as an exhibit, and the contents had been doctored in any event?
-
This brings us back to the question of the rifle which WPC Jeapes reported seeing that was leaning up against the inside of the bedroom window before the six man raid team set off to get into the premises?
What happened once she spotted the rifle, did the police just simply forget about it being there?
-
This brings us back to the question of the rifle which WPC Jeapes reported seeing that was leaning up against the inside of the bedroom window before the six man raid team set off to get into the premises?
What happened once she spotted the rifle, did the police just simply forget about it being there?
Of course they didn't...
-
OK, we'll approach this from another angle, would it be fair to assume that the rifle which was spotted at the window by WPC Julia jeapes at about 7:15am, was kept under constant observation until the operation inside the farmhouse had been successfully dealt with? Would it also be safe to assume that if it had disappeared from the window, that this would have become a major concern for the police at the scene, in particular, for the safety of the six man raid team who had since gone into the premises?
-
OK, we'll approach this from another angle, would it be fair to assume that the rifle which was spotted at the window by WPC Julia jeapes at about 7:15am, was kept under constant observation until the operation inside the farmhouse had been successfully dealt with? Would it also be safe to assume that if it had disappeared from the window, that this would have become a major concern for the police at the scene, in particular, for the safety of the six man raid team who had since gone into the premises?
If the rifle had gone missing from the window, in the interim period between when WPC Jeapes saw it there (7:15am) and the point where members of the raid team got into the bedroom to find Sheila on the floor with the same rifle a top her body, that it can only mean that Sheila took possession of the said rifle from the bedroom window at some point after 7:15am, and that she shot herself with use of it to enable the police to find her there on the floor as they say that had done, and did?
-
If the rifle had gone missing from the window, in the interim period between when WPC Jeapes saw it there (7:15am) and the point where members of the raid team got into the bedroom to find Sheila on the floor with the same rifle a top her body, that it can only mean that Sheila took possession of the said rifle from the bedroom window at some point after 7:15am, and that she shot herself with use of it to enable the police to find her there on the floor, as they say that had done, and did?
If that be the case, then all that / this nonsense about the use of a silencer on the gun that fired the fatal shot (by way of bullet PV/19) under her chin that killed her, is total and utter garbage, and was only introduced by way of a conspiracy involving relatives and the police, to make sure that Bamber got convicted, when there existed evidence which was capable of undermining the use of any silencer at the time she was shot and killed? How could the police not realize the significance of the sighting of the rifle at the bedroom window by WPC Julia Jeapes, who was a trained firearms instructor with Essex police? How could the police not have the intelligence to be able to work out that if by the time the raid team got into the bedroom the rifle was atop Sheila's body, that it could only have got there from the window after 7:15am, if Sheila herself had taken possession of it and shot herself (if the police did not shoot her themselves)?
-
If there was or had been a silencer fitted to the end of the rifles barrel at the time Sheila was shot by bullet PV/19, with the rifle from the bedroom window, what happened to the silencer after police discovered Sheila's body there on the bedroom floor? How could the silencer (if used at that time) manage to get all the way downstairs into the gun cupboard, and how could the police miss it, and in so doing, it remained there in the gun cupboard undiscovered, until the relatives came along on 10th August, to discover it?
Sorry...
None of this makes sense to me, police would have known if the rifle at the bedroom window (7:15am) had a silencer fitted to its barrel, when it was used to shoot Sheila under the chin, no matter who shot and killed her, after that (7:15am) time? The silencer couldn't have got into the gun cupboard downstairs all by itself, and Jeremy couldn't have put it there (after the sighting of the rifle at the window by WPC Jeapes at 7:15am), because he was with the police outside and had been so from as early as 3:52am that same morning...
-
Now, this brings us nicely onto the matter or any possible explanation for how Sheila's blood got into the silencer if the silencer was not used on the rifle from the window (after 7:15am) to fire the fatal bullet (PV/19) under her chin, that ultimately killed her? The only possible explanation could be that it got there by a process of contamination, since it could not have got there by the process of backspatter (if the silencer was not fitted to the barrel of the rifle at the bedroom window from 7:15am, onwards?
-
There is something very sinister about the reason why WPC Julia Jeapes made a witness statement about the sighting of the rifle at the bedroom window, in the first place, and why it was not disclosed to Bamber or to his legal team before the commencement of trial in October 1986?
-
There is something very sinister about the reason why WPC Julia Jeapes made a witness statement about the sighting of the rifle at the bedroom window, in the first place, and why it was not disclosed to Bamber or to his legal team before the commencement of trial in October 1986?
I'll say it's sinister,Mike,,,because everyone made so much about the silencer being " pivotal " to the case,,,so as to direct and divert people away from what really happened. The jury were so " blinded with science " over the blessed silencer that I doubt many of them even understood anything about them.
Was that silencer planted.? Of course it was. Because it certainly wasn't in the cupboard on the many times that the police had looked,,then suddenly it appears. It stinks.
-
I would have said that Sheila died at around 7.20/30 because of the viscosity of her blood, 2 and a half/3 hours later while Jeremy was outside.
-
I would have said that Sheila died at around 7.20/30 because of the viscosity of her blood, 2 and a half/3 hours later while Jeremy was outside.
I think it was a "cop out" not giving a time of death, in the cases of all five victims - especially Sheila's, who obviously did not die soon enough for Jeremy, or any would be killer to have killed her before the police arrived on the scene at 03;48am....
-
I would have said that Sheila died at around 7.20/30 because of the viscosity of her blood, 2 and a half/3 hours later while Jeremy was outside.
How do you explain the fact that the blood on Sheila's cheek which is from the second (fatal) wound is completely dry in Bird's photo 28 then?
-
I'll say it's sinister,Mike,,,because everyone made so much about the silencer being " pivotal " to the case,,,so as to direct and divert people away from what really happened. The jury were so " blinded with science " over the blessed silencer that I doubt many of them even understood anything about them.
Was that silencer planted.? Of course it was. Because it certainly wasn't in the cupboard on the many times that the police had looked,,then suddenly it appears. It stinks.
I tend to agree with your suggestion that everyone was so caught up in the silencer evidence and the blood evidence found within it, that they overlooked the importance of trying to establish the correct order that the photographs had been taken in, except for the police of course, which was why PC Bird created all these false photographic schedules, and why the existence of the SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM containing no fewer than 581 photographs was deliberately concealed from everyone but the police who were involved in covering up what actually took place? I mean, you do not create a MASTER COPY ALBUM which you place 223 of the 581 photographs from the SENIOR INVESTIGATING OFFICERS ALBUM into, and call it the MASTER COPY ALBUM unless you are trying to convince everyone that all the photographs taken in connection with this / that investigation are contained within its covers, you do not go to such lengths for nothing, and in by doing so, it allows the police to sweep 358 photographs under the carpet which no-one will ever get to see before it's too late. You do not go to those lengths for nothing. You do not get PC Bird to produce a schedule showing which of the 223 photographs in the so called MASTER COPY ALBUM were chosen to become the 50 COURT ALBUM photographs, if you are not trying to deceive everyone that matters in the due process of the trial, that the police only took 223 pictures, you do not go to such lengths for nothing, but if you do go to such lengths it is because you are covering something up which you do not want the general public to find out about. You do not cut up the negative strips which contain the negatives of the photographs which were taken in chronological order, so that you can feed false information about the sequence with which key photographs were taken, which show the rifle a top Sheila's body, to allow and enable you to falsely suggest that a key photograph of the rifle which shows it leaning up against the bedroom window (from the vantage point of the middle landing of the main stairs) was taken after photographs which show the same rifle on her body, when the opposite was / is true. You do not go to such lengths for nothing unless there is something very seriously wrong with the police case that is being brought against Jeremy Bamber. The fact of the matter is, whether anyone chooses to believe this or not is that Sheila was shot and killed when the loaded rifle from the bedroom window as shown in photo' 23, was moved onto Sheila's body, with the barrel of the rifle in the region of her chin, and the fingers of her right hand upon or around the trigger mechanism, which caused the fatal bullet (PV/19) to become discharged from the weapon, up under her chin, into her mouth and up through the roof of her mouth, and into her brain. This took place a long time after the police surgeon, Dr Craig had already pronounced Sheila as being dead at 8:44am, at a time when he said her body was on the far side of the bed, with what appeared to be a solitary wound to her neck. Dr Craig, was accompanied at this time by PI "Bob" Miller, who also repeated everything, word for word, what Dr Craig said including the fact that Sheila only had a solitary wound to her neck at the time she was pronounced as being dead. Well, she wasn't dead at that stage, although she did only have a solitary wound to her neck at that time. What we also have to bear in mind, is that when Julie Mugford went to the morgue to identify Sheila's body, she reported back to the relatives and everyone else that Sheila only had a solitary wound under her chin, so her body (Sheila's) must have been prepared or presented in such a way as to give the impression that she only had a solitary wound to her neck? Then on 14th August 1985, PI "Bob" Miller attended the opening of the inquest and told the Deputy coroner, Mr Thompkin, that police were satisfied that Sheila shot and killed the others, and that she had then gone on to take her own life by way of a solitary shot under the chin - so you can all make up your own minds about what took place, and who did what, where, and when...
One other thing which springs to mind, which I feel may be important was the fact that during a training exercise which took place at the scene whilst the bodies of the five victims were still laid out in situ, police officers got up to a few pranks and became disrespectful to the corpses, and the crime scene in general. it was whilst such pranks were being carried out, that Sheila got shot by use of the loaded rifle from the window (as shown in photo' 23). Furthermore, according to DI Cook, and the other SOCO's supposedly in charge of the crime scene from 10am, onwards, the only people present inside whf once the examination of it began from 10am, onwards was Cook, Hammersley, Bird and Davidson, yet some crime scene photographs show a presence of other officers (including DC "Mick" Clarke) at one time or another? Police have lied about who was there at the time they shot Sheila, and the fact that there was a training exercise which went tragically wrong, and had serious consequences for Essex police - this is what they have sought to cover up. Police officers playing pranks and fooling around at a crime scene where there had been multiple shootings...
-
Attention has been drawn to the fact that although it appears to show wet looking blood running and leaking and pouring from the two wounds, and the sides of Sheila's mouth (in one close up photograph), that in others, the same blood appears dried, half dried, and or coagulated?
This can easily be explained away, since what took place was that the police photographer used a tripod and focussed on the area on Sheila's throat at a time when the blood which was oozing from the wounds and her mouth, was still relatively wet looking. At this stage / time the photographer took a photograph. Then there was some sort of a delay whilst the blood spoken about had coagulated, which could have been taken as soon as 15 minutes or so had elapsed, and after which once the necessary time had elapsed the photographer simply zoomed back out and took another photograph from the exact same angle. This produced a photograph from that angle which showed the blood had coagulated, and had started to crack, or whatever...
The police therefore ended up with two images from the same angle, although one was a close up shot of the wet looking blood running, leaking and pouring from the wounds (etc...), whilst the other showed the same areas of blood, dried, and coagulated...
My understanding, is that when GDS represented Jeremy, that he sought expert opinion (In Italy) about how long it would take the blood to dry and start to coagulate once the heart had stopped beating, and the expert made a report, stating that there would be no oxygen in the blood, after 15 minutes or so, and at that stage the blood would start to go off, and dry, so to speak...
-
How do you explain the fact that the blood on Sheila's cheek which is from the second (fatal) wound is completely dry in Bird's photo 28 then?
Because it wasn't venous blood,Bridget. ( pumping )
-
Because it wasn't venous blood,Bridget. ( pumping )
Lookout, I would imagine that any blood from Sheila's second wound would really only run out of her mouth when her head was moved or was on one side. If she was lying flat on her back with her head straight onto the floor, her airway would be open, even if she was dead and the blood would pour down her throat rather than out of her mouth, that is until the heart stopped pumping. Do you agree?
-
Maggie wonder what has happened to Margot she must have got a bug. :)
-
Because it wasn't venous blood,Bridget. ( pumping )
Only oxygenated blood is bright red,,as Mike explained,,,it goes a dark reddy/brown when it's stopped pumping,within 15 minutes or so. Hours later,like Sheila was supposed to have been lying on the floor,the blood would have looked black and not bright red as the pics show. Which would have indicated that she hadn't been dead that long as people may have thought.
I'll say it again. I find it quite odd that not one of the deceased was given a time of death. It's usually one of the first details recorded/logged for investigation purposes. It's very bad detecting work.
-
Attention has been drawn to the fact that although it appears to show wet looking blood running and leaking and pouring from the two wounds, and the sides of Sheila's mouth (in one close up photograph), that in others, the same blood appears dried, half dried, and or coagulated?
This can easily be explained away, since what took place was that the police photographer used a tripod and focussed on the area on Sheila's throat at a time when the blood which was oozing from the wounds and her mouth, was still relatively wet looking. At this stage / time the photographer took a photograph. Then there was some sort of a delay whilst the blood spoken about had coagulated, which could have been taken as soon as 15 minutes or so had elapsed, and after which once the necessary time had elapsed the photographer simply zoomed back out and took another photograph from the exact same angle. This produced a photograph from that angle which showed the blood had coagulated, and had started to crack, or whatever...
The police therefore ended up with two images from the same angle, although one was a close up shot of the wet looking blood running, leaking and pouring from the wounds (etc...), whilst the other showed the same areas of blood, dried, and coagulated...
My understanding, is that when GDS represented Jeremy, that he sought expert opinion (In Italy) about how long it would take the blood to dry and start to coagulate once the heart had stopped beating, and the expert made a report, stating that there would be no oxygen in the blood, after 15 minutes or so, and at that stage the blood would start to go off, and dry, so to speak...
So what you are saying now is that Bird took photo 23, then someone shot her (accidentally), then Bird set up a tripod and took the red wet blood photo, waited until the blood dried (it may coagulate after 15minutes but would take a substantially longer time to dry to the extent that it would crack up), then returned and took photos 27 and 28, then possible others including 32 and 33.
Alternatively, the red blood photo, photo 27 and photo 28 are all prints from the same negative, and it's only now that you have produced photo 28 that we can clearly see that the blood on Sheila's face is in fact dry. Sheila had clearly been dead for some time when photo 27/28/red blood was taken, which is entirely consistant with the police officers' evidence, and that of Dr Craig.
-
It is bad enough that police officers were fooling around at the scene with the bodies of the five victims still in situ, but for one of the victims to then be shot as a result of such pranks being carried out, was something that Essex police were not prepared to hold their hands up to - this is what they sought to cover up, it was never intended to be a case of the police framing Jeremy by stage managing the scene in the manner that they did, it was all about self preservation. Imagine if it had come out that whilst were fooling around at the crime scene with the bodies of the victims still in situ, that one of the victims (Sheila) had been shot by a loaded rifle taken from the bedroom window, and placed on her body? I know there are some amongst you who do not believe that this did happen, even though it did. But imagine that it did, how many of you would say that it would have been the easiest thing in the world for the police to own up to, if that is what they did, and what had taken place? The police are not in th habit of doing their dirty washing in public places. It would have been normal and natural for the police to try to cover up what took place, and that is precisely what did take place. Sheila was shot under the chin by a bullet fired from the rifle that WPC Julia Jeapes had seen leaning against the bedroom window at about 7:15am, before the six man raid team had even set off to enter the premises - Stop deluding yourselves into thinking that the rifle she saw was never leaning against that window, because it was, and what is more there were only three rifles known to be kept and which should have been present inside the farmhouse, one was the family owned anshulz rifle, another was Anthony Pargeters .22 bolt action rifle, and the other was the .22 air rifle. Now, according to the police case, the raid team found Sheila's body on the floor next to the bed with the family owned anshulz rifle a top it. If true, and there was only one rifle found in the bedroom and there was no rifle leaning up against the bedroom window by that stage, then how did that rifle get from the window at say 7:15am, onto Sheila's body in less than an hour later? How could Jeremy or anybody else have moved the rifle from the window onto the body in that short space of time, without even being present inside the farmhouse? If the anshulz rifle was on Sheila's body as claimed ( and if you believe that you will fall for any old story just so long as a policeman says it) what happened to the rifle which WPC Julia Jeapes saw at the window? This is a crucial feature of the evidence which helps to determine that Jeremy Bamber did not and could not have shot his sister Sheila in the bedroom and stage managed her body there by placing the rifle a top it so as to fool police into thinking, that she took her own life. Fact is, he simply could not have done that in the now known circumstances of the case, he could not have done that because he had no opportunity to move the rifle from the window onto the body in less than an hour that it took for it to be displaced from one pace to the other and end up on her body in time for the raid team to find Sheila on the floor with the rifle on her....
The police version of events is all lies....
-
Only oxygenated blood is bright red,,as Mike explained,,,it goes a dark reddy/brown when it's stopped pumping,within 15 minutes or so. Hours later,like Sheila was supposed to have been lying on the floor,the blood would have looked black and not bright red as the pics show. Which would have indicated that she hadn't been dead that long as people may have thought.
I'll say it again. I find it quite odd that not one of the deceased was given a time of death. It's usually one of the first details recorded/logged for investigation purposes. It's very bad detecting work.
I'm not talking about the colour of it, I'm talking about the fact that it is completely dry.
-
Attention has been drawn to the fact that although it appears to show wet looking blood running and leaking and pouring from the two wounds, and the sides of Sheila's mouth (in one close up photograph), that in others, the same blood appears dried, half dried, and or coagulated?
This can easily be explained away, since what took place was that the police photographer used a tripod and focussed on the area on Sheila's throat at a time when the blood which was oozing from the wounds and her mouth, was still relatively wet looking. At this stage / time the photographer took a photograph. Then there was some sort of a delay whilst the blood spoken about had coagulated, which could have been taken as soon as 15 minutes or so had elapsed, and after which once the necessary time had elapsed the photographer simply zoomed back out and took another photograph from the exact same angle. This produced a photograph from that angle which showed the blood had coagulated, and had started to crack, or whatever...
The police therefore ended up with two images from the same angle, although one was a close up shot of the wet looking blood running, leaking and pouring from the wounds (etc...), whilst the other showed the same areas of blood, dried, and coagulated...
My understanding, is that when GDS represented Jeremy, that he sought expert opinion (In Italy) about how long it would take the blood to dry and start to coagulate once the heart had stopped beating, and the expert made a report, stating that there would be no oxygen in the blood, after 15 minutes or so, and at that stage the blood would start to go off, and dry, so to speak...
Mike, the tripod theory is a bit sketchy, don't you think? There is no evidence for it. Also, on the vivid wet blood photo close up, we cannot see the blood which emanates from the mouth, to check if it looks less coagulated than it does in the less vivid photographs.
Might that contradict their other report? The one that places her death not superior to two hours of being discovered
-
Mike it's disgusting,,but I had an idea that there'd been some " acting ",,judging by Nevill and the coal scuttle. Sorry,,but a cadaver doesn't suddenly fall head first into a vessel. Like the rifle,,it was placed there,,or Nevill was helped into it just because it happened to be there.
The whole thing was conducted so irreverently,it just beggars belief how some people can treat the dead.
-
I'm not talking about the colour of it, I'm talking about the fact that it is completely dry.
Not all of it was completely dry Bridget. Only the surface blood,perhaps,,which,if thin enough,will dry.
-
I'm not talking about the colour of it, I'm talking about the fact that it is completely dry.
Yes Bridget, but the blood would only have flowed out of the sides of Sheila's mouth when her head was moved and tilted for some reason. If she was left lying still in that position after the initial movement when she was shot, the blood would run down her throat. Lying flat on the floor with her head back would open her airway enough for the blood to escape down her thoat as it finds gravity. So only the initial blood would be on her face. This would have formed a dry coating quite quickly. imo
-
So what you are saying now is that Bird took photo 23, then someone shot her (accidentally), then Bird set up a tripod and took the red wet blood photo, waited until the blood dried (it may coagulate after 15minutes but would take a substantially longer time to dry to the extent that it would crack up), then returned and took photos 27 and 28, then possible others including 32 and 33.
Alternatively, the red blood photo, photo 27 and photo 28 are all prints from the same negative, and it's only now that you have produced photo 28 that we can clearly see that the blood on Sheila's face is in fact dry. Sheila had clearly been dead for some time when photo 27/28/red blood was taken, which is entirely consistant with the police officers' evidence, and that of Dr Craig.
You are confusing yourself, and trying to be deliberately obstructive...
The facts speak for themselves, the photographic evidence has been doctored, and the jury which tried this case have been deliberately deceived about when certain crucial photographs were taken by PC Bird, who literally hasn't got a clue what he's saying from one moment to the other, and he finds himself in this position because negative strips have been cut and vital photographs taken out of the loop to prevent it being used to prosecute himself and the others involved in the conspiracy relating to the shooting of Sheila with the loaded rifle from the window whilst police were fooling around and playing pranks at the scene with the bodies of the victims still in situ...
Now, you can throw all sorts of thoeries into the equation about which photo' has fresh blood and which doesn't and try to use what your saying to try to undermine what took place, but I have two questions to put to you, or at least two requests that hopefully will shut you up and stop you being so obstructive..
Firstly, please tell me the photograph number of the following close up image?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=18724;image)
And before you say anything to the contrary, it is not simply an enlargement from one of the other photographs, but a photograph that was taken at the scene by PC bird, zoomed in...
So, please tell me which photograph number it has, and which negative strip this image was taken upon?
-
if you believe that you will fall for any old story... just so long as a policeman says it.
I do think that this is the approach naturally taken by some posters on here. I regard it as 'Dixon of Dock Green' syndrome.
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/southtoday/content/images/2007/09/12/police_archive_gallery_28_470x300.jpg)
-
You are confusing yourself, and trying to be deliberately obstructive...
The facts speak for themselves, the photographic evidence has been doctored, and the jury which tried this case have been deliberately deceived about when certain crucial photographs were taken by PC Bird, who literally hasn't got a clue what he's saying from one moment to the other, and he finds himself in this position because negative strips have been cut and vital photographs taken out of the loop to prevent it being used to prosecute himself and the others involved in the conspiracy relating to the shooting of Sheila with the loaded rifle from the window whilst police were fooling around and playing pranks at the scene with the bodies of the victims still in situ...
Now, you can throw all sorts of thoeries into the equation about which photo' has fresh blood and which doesn't and try to use what your saying to try to undermine what took place, but I have two questions to put to you, or at least two requests that hopefully will shut you up and stop you being so obstructive..
Firstly, please tell me the photograph number of the following close up image?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=18724;image)
And before you say anything to the contrary, it is not simply an enlargement from one of the other photographs, but a photograph that was taken at the scene by PC bird, zoomed in...
So, please tell me which photograph number it has, and which negative strip this image was taken upon?
Next request...
Please demonstrate to me, how anyone can alter the dark dried looking blood on Sheila's face and neck, and make it look like it is wet ,looking blood, without dramatically altering the tone/contrast of the skin colour, and the colour of her nightdress and surrounding area in the same photograph? Just do it and post the results to me, for me to look at - you will not be able to do this without me being able to spot what has been done (I can assure you)...
Here, start with this one:-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4308;image)
-
Not all of it was completely dry Bridget. Only the surface blood,perhaps,,which,if thin enough,will dry.
I agree with this, the blood which ran from the sides of the mouth might only have been a very thin line of blood which would change in its consistency very quickly as opposed to the blood from the upper entry wound which had a continual flow for several minutes at a time?
-
Yes Bridget, but the blood would only have flowed out of the sides of Sheila's mouth when her head was moved and tilted for some reason. If she was left lying still in that position after the initial movement when she was shot, the blood would run down her throat. Lying flat on the floor with her head back would open her airway enough for the blood to escape down her thoat as it finds gravity. So only the initial blood would be on her face. This would have formed a dry coating quite quickly. imo
I agree...
-
You are confusing yourself, and trying to be deliberately obstructive...
The facts speak for themselves, the photographic evidence has been doctored, and the jury which tried this case have been deliberately deceived about when certain crucial photographs were taken by PC Bird, who literally hasn't got a clue what he's saying from one moment to the other, and he finds himself in this position because negative strips have been cut and vital photographs taken out of the loop to prevent it being used to prosecute himself and the others involved in the conspiracy relating to the shooting of Sheila with the loaded rifle from the window whilst police were fooling around and playing pranks at the scene with the bodies of the victims still in situ...
Now, you can throw all sorts of thoeries into the equation about which photo' has fresh blood and which doesn't and try to use what your saying to try to undermine what took place, but I have two questions to put to you, or at least two requests that hopefully will shut you up and stop you being so obstructive..
Firstly, please tell me the photograph number of the following close up image?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=18724;image)
And before you say anything to the contrary, it is not simply an enlargement from one of the other photographs, but a photograph that was taken at the scene by PC bird, zoomed in...
So, please tell me which photograph number it has, and which negative strip this image was taken upon?
Can you take the wet looking blood in this image (above) and change it so that it looks dark, dried and coagulated without effecting the tone/contrast of the skin etc..
Thanks in anticipation, I look forward to seeing your experiment results with great interest?
-
So what you are saying now is that Bird took photo 23, then someone shot her (accidentally), then Bird set up a tripod and took the red wet blood photo, waited until the blood dried (it may coagulate after 15minutes but would take a substantially longer time to dry to the extent that it would crack up), then returned and took photos 27 and 28, then possible others including 32 and 33.
Alternatively, the red blood photo, photo 27 and photo 28 are all prints from the same negative, and it's only now that you have produced photo 28 that we can clearly see that the blood on Sheila's face is in fact dry. Sheila had clearly been dead for some time when photo 27/28/red blood was taken, which is entirely consistant with the police officers' evidence, and that of Dr Craig.
Please tell me in what order of the true sequence of events or chronological order, that photo' 28 was taken? You also forget to mention that in photo' 28 the barrel of the rifle is against Sheila's neck, whereas, in 32 it is not? Do you think 28 was taken before 32, or vice versa?
-
And where in the grand scheme of things was the photographs of Sheila on the bed, with no rifle on her body, and no blood running, or pouring, and leaking from the corners of her mouth, taken? Was this after photo' 23 was taken, or before?
-
And where in the grand scheme of things was the photographs of Sheila on the bed, with no rifle on her body, and no blood running, or pouring, and leaking from the corners of her mouth, taken? Was this after photo' 23 was taken, or before?
So, we have (a) - Sheila on the bed with no rifle on her body, no blood running, leaking or pouring from the corners of her mouth, and (b) - another set of photographs (27, 28, 32 and 33) with the rifle now on her body with its barrel in different positions against her throat, and (c) - we have a rifle that is / was photographed leaning up against the bedroom window (23)?
So, which set of pictures was taken first to last, do you think?
Well, I'll give you a clue, (a) was taken before (b) - but where does (c) fit into the equation, before (a)? Before (b)? Or in between (a) and (b)?
-
So...
According to all we have seen thus far, PC Bird produced one photographic album, identified by exhibit mark DB/9 (in time for the trial which took place in October 1986, and a further three albums in December 2001 which he handed to the COLP investigators, identifiable by the exhibit marks of DB/100, DB/101 and DB/103:-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1037.0;attach=12011;image)(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1037.0;attach=12012;image)
I wonder what his exhibit DB/102 was / is?
-
Not all of it was completely dry Bridget. Only the surface blood,perhaps,,which,if thin enough,will dry.
No, it's dry to the extent that it's cracking up and flaking.
Yes Bridget, but the blood would only have flowed out of the sides of Sheila's mouth when her head was moved and tilted for some reason. If she was left lying still in that position after the initial movement when she was shot, the blood would run down her throat. Lying flat on the floor with her head back would open her airway enough for the blood to escape down her thoat as it finds gravity. So only the initial blood would be on her face. This would have formed a dry coating quite quickly. imo
I agree that the blood on her cheek got there when she was shot for the second time, and spilled as a result of what was probably her last movement. You can see from the photo how much spilt, it is what I would describe as a fairly thick rivulet and would have taken some time to dry IMO. My OH is always cutting himself, next time it happens I'll make him leave it and time it :)
Now, you can throw all sorts of thoeries into the equation about which photo' has fresh blood and which doesn't and try to use what your saying to try to undermine what took place, but I have two questions to put to you, or at least two requests that hopefully will shut you up and stop you being so obstructive..
Firstly, please tell me the photograph number of the following close up image?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=18724;image)
And before you say anything to the contrary, it is not simply an enlargement from one of the other photographs, but a photograph that was taken at the scene by PC bird, zoomed in...
So, please tell me which photograph number it has, and which negative strip this image was taken upon?
It is a blow up from the same negative as photo 27 which has been enhanced by the newspaper / media.
Next request...
Please demonstrate to me, how anyone can alter the dark dried looking blood on Sheila's face and neck, and make it look like it is wet ,looking blood, without dramatically altering the tone/contrast of the skin colour, and the colour of her nightdress and surrounding area in the same photograph? Just do it and post the results to me, for me to look at - you will not be able to do this without me being able to spot what has been done (I can assure you)...
Here, start with this one:-
The tone / contrast of the skin colour and nightdress has been dramatically altered when compared to your photos of photos. The difference will probably be less when compared to a print taken directly from the negative.
Can you take the wet looking blood in this image (above) and change it so that it looks dark, dried and coagulated without effecting the tone/contrast of the skin etc..
Thanks in anticipation, I look forward to seeing your experiment results with great interest?
Probably, given a few hours with Photoshop, but I don't need to because the tone / contrast of the skin has clearly altered dramatically when they produced the 'red' photo, so clearly they weren't so careful.
Please tell me in what order of the true sequence of events or chronological order, that photo' 28 was taken? You also forget to mention that in photo' 28 the barrel of the rifle is against Sheila's neck, whereas, in 32 it is not? Do you think 28 was taken before 32, or vice versa?
The barrel of the gun isn't against her neck in any of the photos, it's physically impossible for it to have been. Photo 28 is a blow up of photo 27, which according to Bird was taken after photo 33, and before photo 32.
And where in the grand scheme of things was the photographs of Sheila on the bed, with no rifle on her body, and no blood running, or pouring, and leaking from the corners of her mouth, taken? Was this after photo' 23 was taken, or before?
In my grand scheme of things there are no photos of Sheila on the bed, unless they were taken just prior to her removal, which would be after 23 was taken.
-
It is a blow up from the same negative as photo 27 which has been enhanced by the newspaper / media.
The barrel of the gun isn't against her neck in any of the photos, it's physically impossible for it to have been. Photo 28 is a blow up of photo 27, which according to Bird was taken after photo 33, and before photo 32.
Funny how the coloured photo is not from the same negative as 27, but that it has a negative number of its own, so that puts the dampers on that part of your theory...
And the barrel in 28 is against Sheila's neck, there can be no doubt about that / this at all, there is no way you can alter the position of the rifle as shown against the neck in 28, by altering position to take a different photograph which shows it has moved to any significant extent, sorry it can't be done...
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1654.0;attach=7779
;image)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1654.0;attach=7780
;image)
-
The barrel of the gun isn't against her neck in any of the photos, it's physically impossible for it to have been. Photo 28 is a blow up of photo 27, which according to Bird was taken after photo 33, and before photo 32.
So...
if there were 10 negatives to each negative strip, and PC Bird took the photographs in the order you say, he says he took them, which negative strip did he take photographs 27, 28, 32 and 33, on? Third negative strip in use, or fourth?
-
In my grand scheme of things there are no photos of Sheila on the bed, unless they were taken just prior to her removal, which would be after 23 was taken.
You got a problem there with that theory, since there is no blood running and leaking or pouring from the corners of Sheila's mouth when she was photographed on the bed...
-
Try,as the police might,but it was impossible to get an alignment of the rifle against Sheilas' neck. Rifles don't bend,,and neither does a body when it's stiff.
Didn't they try hard.?? But we know it didn't work like that,,,though in their own fashion,for the privilege of the misled jury, they made it work.! Oh how they elaborated.
-
And how does the order which you say he says he took those photographs in, sit with the other schedule that he produced purporting to show which rooms he took photographs in?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=738.0;attach=3241;image)
How could the police photograph the body of Sheila on the bed, with no rifle and no blood coming from the corners of her mouth, when according to PC Birds own schedule (above) , he did not revisit the main bedroom to take such a photograph of Sheila on the bed before her body was taken away to the mortuary?
-
And how does the order which you say he says he took those photographs in, sit with the other schedule that he produced purporting to show which rooms he took photographs in?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=738.0;attach=3241;image)
How could the police photograph the body of Sheila on the bed, with no rifle and no blood coming from the corners of her mouth, when according to PC Birds own schedule (above) , he did not revisit the main bedroom to take such a photograph of Sheila on the bed before her body was taken away to the mortuary?
I would like to see a record of the negative numbers that were used when he first went and took pictures in different rooms at the scene 9which for some inexplicable reason do not accompany any of the photographs in any of the albums...
Very, very dodgy evidence is / was this photographic evidence, very dodgy indeed, in fact so much has been going on with falsifying the photographic records that it was / is criminal what the police have got up to...
-
Funny how the coloured photo is not from the same negative as 27, but that it has a negative number of its own, so that puts the dampers on that part of your theory...
You don't have a schedule of the negative numbers, so you can't possibly know that.
And the barrel in 28 is against Sheila's neck, there can be no doubt about that / this at all, there is no way you can alter the position of the rifle as shown against the neck in 28, by altering position to take a different photograph which shows it has moved to any significant extent, sorry it can't be done...
It isn't against her neck, that is physically impossible. It's an optical illusion, and yes it can be done, I've done it.
So...
if there were 10 negatives to each negative strip, and PC Bird took the photographs in the order you say, he says he took them, which negative strip did he take photographs 27, 28, 32 and 33, on? Third negative strip in use, or fourth?
I have no idea, and neither do you.
You got a problem there with that theory, since there is no blood running and leaking or pouring from the corners of Sheila's mouth when she was photographed on the bed...
I'll be blunt, I don't believe the photo you describe exists. Feel free to prove me wrong and post it.
And how does the order which you say he says he took those photographs in, sit with the other schedule that he produced purporting to show which rooms he took photographs in?
Perfectly.
How could the police photograph the body of Sheila on the bed, with no rifle and no blood coming from the corners of her mouth, when according to PC Birds own schedule (above) , he did not revisit the main bedroom to take such a photograph of Sheila on the bed before her body was taken away to the mortuary?
They didn't.
I would like to see a record of the negative numbers that were used when he first went and took pictures in different rooms at the scene 9which for some inexplicable reason do not accompany any of the photographs in any of the albums...
So would I.
-
Mike, do you think that EP have conspired to frame Bamber to cover for the fact that they delivered the 2nd shot? if so, wouldnt it just have been easier to go along with the murder suicide theory?
-
Mike, do you think that EP have conspired to frame Bamber to cover for the fact that they delivered the 2nd shot? if so, wouldnt it just have been easier to go along with the murder suicide theory?
Hello Andrea, A good post, a columbo moment coming up here but i find it odd that the police were satisfied at the early stages that it was 4 murders and a suicide , as we know this soon changed, i thought the police would want to keep it that way but now became very interested from the moment the silencer was found, a silencer which cannot be proven was in the location found on that morning of 7th August 1985.
-
We have statements to say where it was found, some believe it, others dont. I dont believe for a moment the police shot Sheila though. Even if they had, they would have been justified in doing so.
-
We have statements to say where it was found, some believe it, others dont. I dont believe for a moment the police shot Sheila though. Even if they had, they would have been justified in doing so.
Nor do i think Sheila was shot by the raid team for 1 reason, upon storming the rear entrance they must have given oral warnings inside to the effect of armed officers/police, no single armed officer at no point would have been on their own at the point of storming Sheila would have been shot in a instant if she tried any struggle with the rifle, a check would have been made on the outward and return with the firearms/ammunition of all armed officers,upon storming whf no one was living as i see it.
-
I agree, mertol.
-
just seen on aol 2 children in Leeds have been victims of a hit and run accident , both children are critical in Leeds General Infirmary.
-
Yes it happened in Hyde Park, yesterday afternoon. I saw it on sky news this morning.
-
So far, neither the first nor the second shot has been blamed upon the police in the line of duty. Therefore the argument that police would have nothing to hide if they had shot Sheila is a red herring. Sheila was shot with .22 ammunition. The police cannot shoot Sheila with .22 ammunition in the line of duty.
-
Do you believe the police shot her, Roch? Just a simple yes or no will do, im off to bed soon.
-
According to the evidence, there was only one photographic album exhibited at the trial, and that was the COURT ALBUM containing 50 hand picked photographs from PC Birds MASTER COPY ALBUM (223 photographs) compilation, which had an exhibit reference of (A124/85) DB/9...
What becomes clear from reading the contents of PC Birds witness statement (reproduced on this thread) is that photographs contained in this (DB/9) album, were taken on 7th August 1985 at the scene, followed by photographs of Ralph Bamber and Sheila Caffell at the mortuary during autopsy. Followed by photographs of June Bamber and the two child victims taken on 8th August 1985 at the mortuary. Then on 10th September 1985, PC Bird took some more photographs at the scene involving the aga surround when the additional scratch marks first came to light - and all the different sections in this (DB/9) album (aforementioned) were separated by colour divides...
-
Do you believe the police shot her, Roch? Just a simple yes or no will do, im off to bed soon.
Linked to this question is - do you think the police substituted a fragmented bullet (PV/20) with a whole bullet so that the ballistic expert could say both bullets fired into Sheila were fired from the same rifle?
Also linked to this matter, is the fact that there exists clear evidence that at 8:44am, when the police surgeon (accompanied by PI "Bob" Miller) pronounced Sheila as being dead at the scene, she only had what appeared to be a solitary wound to her neck. This was repeated at the opening of the inquest by PI Miller, and when Julie Mugford went to identify Sheila's body she only saw one wound on her neck, and she told the relatives and her fiend s that this wound had been inflicted under Sheila's chin...
Police had cut up strips of negatives so that they could suggest that the photographs 27, 28, 32 and 33, were taken before PC Bird took photograph 23 which PC Bird photographed from the vantage point of the middle landing showing the rifle leaning against the bedroom window, where it was firast spotted by WPC Jeapes some 15 minutes or so before the six man raid team had even set off to enter the premises at around 7:30am...
How did the rifle which WPC Jeapes see at the bedroom window, end up on top of Sheila's body by the time the raid team allegedly got into the premises and up into the bedroom by about 8:10am, if Sheila did not move it from the bedroom window? If Sheila had moved that rifle from the window, the police would've said so, but they insist that no-one moved anything, and that the rifle was found a top Sheila's body when they first went into the bedroom, and that Jeremy shot and killed her, and then stage managed her body to fool the police into thinking she took her own life? Well, how could Jeremy get into the farmhouse after 7:15am, and move the rifle from the bedroom window, shoot Sheila under the chin and stage manage her body on the bedroom floor by placing the rifle he had taken from the window onto her body in less than an hour before police say they found her body on the bedroom floor next to the bed? If Sheila didn't take possession of the rifle from the bedroom window after WPC Jeapes first spotted it there, then the only way it could end up on Sheila's body in time for PC Bird to photograph it there in keeping with photo's 27, 28, 32 and 33, was if police moved it from there and placed it on her body...
These are the stone cold facts, indisputable, and no matter what amount of denials are put forward by the police, there is no getting away from the fact that the rifle which fired the fatal bullet (PV/19) under Sheila's chin which killed her, was a rifle that could not have been a top her body at and from 7:15am, and if Sheila's body had been found at all in that bedroom, with the rifle there, the police would have no option but to reach a conclusion that she had been murdered, but they didn't, they chose to go down the road that she had killed the others and then taken her own life. In such circumstances, police must have and did mishandle the rifle that they took from the window during horseplay and a solitary shot was discharged from it under her chin, long after the police surgeon, Dr Craig had pronounced her as being dead at 8:44am...
-
Linked to this question is - do you think the police substituted a fragmented bullet (PV/20) with a whole bullet so that the ballistic expert could say both bullets fired into Sheila were fired from the same rifle?
Also linked to this matter, is the fact that there exists clear evidence that at 8:44am, when the police surgeon (accompanied by PI "Bob" Miller) pronounced Sheila as being dead at the scene, she only had what appeared to be a solitary wound to her neck. This was repeated at the opening of the inquest by PI Miller, and when Julie Mugford went to identify Sheila's body she only saw one wound on her neck, and she told the relatives and her fiend s that this wound had been inflicted under Sheila's chin...
Police had cut up strips of negatives so that they could suggest that the photographs 27, 28, 32 and 33, were taken before PC Bird took photograph 23 which PC Bird photographed from the vantage point of the middle landing showing the rifle leaning against the bedroom window, where it was firast spotted by WPC Jeapes some 15 minutes or so before the six man raid team had even set off to enter the premises at around 7:30am...
How did the rifle which WPC Jeapes see at the bedroom window, end up on top of Sheila's body by the time the raid team allegedly got into the premises and up into the bedroom by about 8:10am, if Sheila did not move it from the bedroom window? If Sheila had moved that rifle from the window, the police would've said so, but they insist that no-one moved anything, and that the rifle was found a top Sheila's body when they first went into the bedroom, and that Jeremy shot and killed her, and then stage managed her body to fool the police into thinking she took her own life? Well, how could Jeremy get into the farmhouse after 7:15am, and move the rifle from the bedroom window, shoot Sheila under the chin and stage manage her body on the bedroom floor by placing the rifle he had taken from the window onto her body in less than an hour before police say they found her body on the bedroom floor next to the bed? If Sheila didn't take possession of the rifle from the bedroom window after WPC Jeapes first spotted it there, then the only way it could end up on Sheila's body in time for PC Bird to photograph it there in keeping with photo's 27, 28, 32 and 33, was if police moved it from there and placed it on her body...
These are the stone cold facts, indisputable, and no matter what amount of denials are put forward by the police, there is no getting away from the fact that the rifle which fired the fatal bullet (PV/19) under Sheila's chin which killed her, was a rifle that could not have been a top her body at and from 7:15am, and if Sheila's body had been found at all in that bedroom, with the rifle there, the police would have no option but to reach a conclusion that she had been murdered, but they didn't, they chose to go down the road that she had killed the others and then taken her own life. In such circumstances, police must have and did mishandle the rifle that they took from the window during horseplay and a solitary shot was discharged from it under her chin, long after the police surgeon, Dr Craig had pronounced her as being dead at 8:44am...
Where is the photograph with Sheila on the bed and no blood running from the corners of her mouth as you claim in #46? The scenario of Sheila shooting herself in the kitchen and then moving upstairs was ruled out by Dr. Vanezis,who said that movement up and downstairs would not have been possible after the first bullet had been discharged. This evidence was given under oath.
As for the rifle seen by WPC Jeapes,surely one of the Police would have kept an eye on this rifle constantly and if it had been moved from the window at any time it would have been noted and reported to warn any of their colleagues of the danger they would face upon entry into the farm and from what I can make out there was no such report.
-
Do you believe the police shot her, Roch? Just a simple yes or no will do, im off to bed soon.
Can you please confirm which weapon you mean and I will try to answer your question.
-
Sheila had been shot, ( second shot )no doubt about that. Whether " accidental " or otherwise,she didn't administer that shot herself. No silencer.
-
Can you please confirm which weapon you mean and I will try to answer your question.
i dont believe the police shot her, so what weapons they had with them that morning doesnt matter to me. I just want to know if you believe they shot her, in your opinion which weapon do you think they used?
-
i dont believe the police shot her, so what weapons they had with them that morning doesnt matter to me. I just want to know if you believe they shot her, in your opinion which weapon do you think they used?
Well, you are wrong then, becauze the police did shoot her once. Another thing, although at least one member of the raid team had a .22 weapon, I am not suggesting this was used to fire the fatal bullet under the chin - police took rifle from window whilst they were fooling around in the bedroom and placed it on her body and because it was not realized the rifle was still loaded a shot was discharged under the chin. It doesn't matter whether you believe they shot Sheila under these circumstances or not, fact is, they did...
-
i dont believe the police shot her, so what weapons they had with them that morning doesnt matter to me. I just want to know if you believe they shot her, in your opinion which weapon do you think they used?
Andy I think we're at cross purposes?
-
i dont believe the police shot her, so what weapons they had with them that morning doesnt matter to me. I just want to know if you believe they shot her, in your opinion which weapon do you think they used?
I'm open minded about both of her shots. If the ballistics evidence relating to the retrieved bullets is to believed, then they were .22. Mike has possibly trashed my argument from yesterday (see posts between my self and Bridget) by alleging that one of the raid team was carrying a .22 weapon (that was not used in shooting Sheila). I had argued that I thought the reasoning why would police cover up shooting a mad woman with a gun? was flawed because it related to police discharging their own weapons, none of which were .22 (or so I thought).
Hope this makes sense :-\
To answer your question, I'm open minded about Mike's accidental mishandling of the rifle theory, which he states as fact. Non-committal. Splinters in my arse, as usual.
-
Confirmation that one of the firearms officers was issued with a .22 weapon befire going to the incident at whf can be found in a witness statement made by the officer in question...