Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: -Harters- on August 30, 2012, 01:09:PM
-
_________________________________________________________________
-
Mr. Jam I really enjoyed your last post :)
-
Mr. Jam I really enjoyed your last post :)
I haven't made it yet. ???
-
So all we want now is for someone to come forward and explain that second shot in Sheilas' neck,when Jeremy was outside with the police. Not asking much,is it.?
-
So all we want now is for someone to come forward and explain that second shot in Sheilas' neck,when Jeremy was outside with the police. Not asking much,is it.?
How about, it was always there but Dr Craig didn't see it?
-
How about, it was always there but Dr Craig didn't see it?
I'm sorry,but if anyone calling himself a doctor,didn't see something so glaringly obvious,then he's got no right to continue in the medical profession.
-
Mr. Jam sorry thought you had but I know I will enjoy when it appears :)
-
How about, it was always there but Dr Craig didn't see it?
Just look at the wet looking blood and the clear well defined bullet entry wounds on Sheila's neck, and ask yourself an honest question - how the hell could Dr Craig, and PI "Bob" Miller, both not see those two bullet entry holes on Sheila's neck, if both were there, and present at 8:44am?
In any event, as it clearly states in Dr Craigs report, he only saw one bullet hole on Sheila's neck at that stage? And when Ewen Smith went to question Craig about it, Craig told him Sheila only had one bullet wound at the time he pronounced her as being dead...
-
I'm sorry,but if anyone calling himself a doctor,didn't see something so glaringly obvious,then he's got no right to continue in the medical profession.
Well as he hasn't described how closely he examined the bodies, only stating that he didn't touch any of them (or words to that effect), then I'm not sure how obvious it would have been.
-
Just look at the wet looking blood and the clear well defined bullet entry wounds on Sheila's neck, and ask yourself an honest question - how the hell could Dr Craig, and PI "Bob" Miller, both not see those two bullet entry holes on Sheila's neck, if both were there, and present at 8:44am?
In any event, as it clearly states in Dr Craigs report, he only saw one bullet hole on Sheila's neck at that stage? And when Ewen Smith went to question Craig about it, Craig told him Sheila only had one bullet wound at the time he pronounced her as being dead...
pronounced them all dead with one wound. makes you wonder how he found his way to the scene....
-
Well as he hasn't described how closely he examined the bodies, only stating that he didn't touch any of them (or words to that effect), then I'm not sure how obvious it would have been.
So two holes in the neck area aren't obvious.? Sheesh.
-
pronounced them all dead with one wound. makes you wonder how he found his way to the scene....
He didn't pronounce then all dead with a solitary wound though.
I don't know, but I'd hazard a guess that he simply mentioned a wound which could have, at first glance caused death.
-
I'm sorry,but if anyone calling himself a doctor,didn't see something so glaringly obvious,then he's got no right to continue in the medical profession.
But Dr Craig was only certifying death (he wasn't undertaking a post mortem), and he does state that "there was no requirement for any physical examination" and that his "look at the bodies was not intensive..." and that he saw only one gunshot wound at that stage".
Dr Craig, as you probably know, is no longer in the medical profession (dec'd).
-
Dr Craig, as you probably know, is no longer in the medical profession (dec'd).
Since February 8th 2004, he was 79.
-
Well as he hasn't described how closely he examined the bodies, only stating that he didn't touch any of them (or words to that effect), then I'm not sure how obvious it would have been.
Its clear enough, if you want to find out the truth, but if you don't want the truth to come out, you will find any excuse you can think up, and argue it means something else. Contact Ewen Smith and ask him what Craig had to say about it? I was not the only person to whom Ewen relayed what he found out after visits to see Dr Craig before he died...
By 8:44am, Sheila had only been shot once, if she had been shot twice by that stage, Dr Craig, and PC Miller, could not possubly have failed to notice two great big bullet entry wounds on Sheila's neck? Lets put things into perpsective, Craig and Miller View the body at 8:44am, and both report only seeing one bullet hole in Sheila's neck - yet, by 10am, along comes PC Bird, and he takes pictures of two whopping bullet holes on Sheila's neck, with fresh looking blood that is running, pouring and leaking from them, which does'nt add up; because PC Bird does"nt photograph the two wounds until 76 minutes after Craig and Miller only see one wound? Now, how could blood still be wet looking, and running, leaking and pouring, if Sheila has already been dead a further 76 minutes?
-
Its clear enough, if you want to find out the truth, but if you don't want the truth to come out, you will find any excuse yiu can think up, and argue it means something else.
.........................
I'm not making any excuses. ???
Jeremy was found guilty on 28/10/1986, the document in this thread is dated after the trial on 13/11/1986 and it includes a comments area where Dr Craig has suggested 'Things for the future'. Clearly he has no concerns that he did not see a second wound to Sheila at the time he certified her death, even though he has brought attention to it in the very same report.
It seems much more likely to me that Dr Craig simply didn't see the second wound, maybe from the position he was standing in it was obscured by the rifle barrel.
-
I'm not making any excuses. ???
Jeremy was found guilty on 28/10/1986, the document in this thread is dated after the trial on 13/11/1986 and it includes a comments area where Dr Craig has suggested 'Things for the future'. Clearly he has no concerns that he did not see a second wound to Sheila at the time he certified her death, even though he has brought attention to it in the very same report.
It seems much more likely to me that Dr Craig simply didn't see the second wound, maybe from the position he was standing in it was obscured by the rifle barrel.
Stop talking stupid, there is'nt Photograph which shows any of tge two wounds obscurwd by the barrel of tge rifle? I have never heard such nonsense in all my life...
-
Stop talking stupid, there is'nt Photograph which shows any of tge two wounds obscurwd by the barrel of tge rifle? I have never heard such nonsense in all my life...
I do hope you aren't about to go into one of your sweary rants. :o
-
Its clear enough, if you want to find out the truth, but if you don't want the truth to come out, you will find any excuse you can think up, and argue it means something else. Contact Ewen Smith and ask him what Craig had to say about it? I was not the only person to whom Ewen relayed what he found out after visits to see Dr Craig before he died...
By 8:44am, Sheila had only been shot once, if she had been shot twice by that stage, Dr Craig, and PC Miller, could not possubly have failed to notice two great big bullet entry wounds on Sheila's neck? Lets put things into perpsective, Craig and Miller View the body at 8:44am, and both report only seeing one bullet hole in Sheila's neck - yet, by 10am, along comes PC Bird, and he takes pictures of two whopping bullet holes on Sheila's neck, with fresh looking blood that is running, pouring and leaking from them, which does'nt add up; because PC Bird does"nt photograph the two wounds until 76 minutes after Craig and Miller only see one wound? Now, how could blood still be wet looking, and running, leaking and pouring, if Sheila has already been dead a further 76 minutes?
Okay Mike, going on the basis that Dr Craig reported seeing one gunshot wound to SC' neck - at that stage - how do we know, how will we ever know, which one it was.
As he was certifying death, it most probably would have been the fatal under the chin shot - in which case SC was already dead. Any subsequent shot delivered accidentally by someone later would be irrelevant as you cannot legally or technically murder/kill a dead person.
However, if it was the neck shot that Dr Craig saw, then again, as Dr Craig confirmed death at the scene, then the initially non-fatal wound must have killed her – a second shot could not have killed her again!
-
Stop talking stupid, there isn't a Photograph which shows any of the two wounds obscured by the barrel of the rifle? I have never heard such nonsense in all my life...
But we do know the police have admitted to moving the rifle, and at some stage it is conceivable that the barrel may have obscured Dr Craig’s vision of SC’s neck.
Perhaps the police may have moved SC's head - at some stage - as well.
All this suggests is more police incompetence - and we are aware of that!
(by the way Mike I have taken the liberty of tidying up your spelling - it's annoying without Spell Check isn’t it? ;) )
-
Well as he hasn't described how closely he examined the bodies, only stating that he didn't touch any of them (or words to that effect), then I'm not sure how obvious it would have been.
Surely a doctor would have to check heartbeat etc before confirming death. That is a bit strange in my opinion.
-
But we do know the police have admitted to moving the rifle, and at some stage it is conceivable that the barrel may have obscured Dr Craig’s vision of SC’s neck.
Perhaps the police may have moved SC's head - at some stage - as well.
All this suggests is more police incompetence - and we are aware of that!
(by the way Mike I have taken the liberty of tidying up your spelling - it's annoying without Spell Check isn’t it? ;) )
I don't think that needed to happen.
Thinking of the photograph linked to below (there's no need to keep re-posting them), I think it's quite possible that if you stood at the end of the bed near Sheilas feet that you might only see a single wound, the lower one being obscured by the rifle barrel.
I also expect that Dr Craig would have attempted to limit any disruption of the murder scene, especially given the fact that SOCO hadn't investigated the scene at that time.
Photograph of Sheilas body: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4312;image
-
Surely a doctor would have to check heartbeat etc before confirming death. That is a bit strange in my opinion.
At the bottom of page one of the document at the beginning of this thread it says:
In each case I certified death. There was no requirement for any physical examination to do this. My look at the bodies was not intensive but it was apparent they had all suffered gunshot wounds.
I do agree with you though, I'd usually have assumed that a more thorough check would have been required, such as looking for a heartbeat as you say.
-
Does anyone know the order in which Dr Ian Donaldson Craig viewed and certified the bodies?
It may be the case that Sheila was the last having already certified Nevill, the twins in bed, June and then Sheila.
Nevill, the twins and June all being deceased.
-
Does anyone know the order in which Dr Ian Donaldson Craig viewed and certified the bodies?
It may be the case that Sheila was the last having already certified Nevill, the twins in bed, June and then Sheila.
Nevill, the twins and June all being deceased.
Hmm good question, I'll see what I can find, I'm not hopeful though.
-
Hmm good question, I'll see what I can find, I'm not hopeful though.
Actually it is in his statement dated 7/8/85:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1187.0.html
Ralph
June
Sheila
Daniel
Nicholas
-
Actually it is in his statement dated 7/8/85:
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,1187.0.html
Ralph
June
Sheila
Daniel
Nicholas
Thanks for the link.
Interesting to say the least.
All certified dead within 10 minutes in the order you have since detailed.
Is the date of the Dr's statement in dispute?
I note the Dr, with specific reference to Sheila, details 'there was a quantity of dried blood which had come apparently from her mouth and what appeared to be an entry wound in her throat.' I certified death at 8.44 am.'
The time 8.44 am is the same time as June being certified dead.
With respect to June the Dr noted 'there was what appeared to be an entry wound between the eyes.'
Having read the whole statement it appears to me that Dr Ian Donaldson Craig has mentioned only what appears to be the entry wounds which could have been the fatal entry wounds. As we all know Nevill had multiple entry wounds yet the Dr mentions one head wound with the appearance of brain matter. June had multiple entry wounds yet the Dr mentions one wound between the eyes. The twins had multiple entry wounds yet the Dr mentions for one twin had an entry wound behind the left ear and for the second twin an entry wound between the eyes. Sheila had two entry wounds and the Dr mentions only a single wound to the throat whilst noting a large quantity of dried blood which appears from Sheila's mouth.
-
I don't think that needed to happen.
Thinking of the photograph linked to below (there's no need to keep re-posting them), I think it's quite possible that if you stood at the end of the bed near Sheilas feet that you might only see a single wound, the lower one being obscured by the rifle barrel.
I also expect that Dr Craig would have attempted to limit any disruption of the murder scene, especially given the fact that SOCO hadn't investigated the scene at that time.
Photograph of Sheilas body: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4312;image
This theory is problematic...
First of all, if Sheila was on floor as you suggest, and Craig stood at foot of bed, how did he see Sheila's right hand on the wooden butt of the rifle? If he could see her right hand on the gun, and the barrel poiting towards her chin, then he would have had no excuse for not seeing two woubds if she had got two wounds by that stage? The other thing, Dr Craig told Ewen That Sheila's body was on the bed when he pronounced her as being dead - contact Ewen Smith and ask him yourself if you don't believe me...
The other thing...
It was always going to be the case that Dr Craig would end up saying that he paid very little attention to Sheila's body - he would say that because ultimately if he had done his job right, Sheila would probably still be alive today. Ask yourself, how could Sheila have all that wet looking blood on her neck, 76 minutes after Craig and Miller saw her on the far side of the bed with what appeared to be a solitary wound on her neck? You need to find an explantion for why Craig and Miller only see one bullet hole in Sheila's neck at 8:44am, and how the blood could still be running and pourung and leaking on her neck 76 minutes later when PC Bird starts to take his pictures from 10am?
-
..................
Is the date of the Dr's statement in dispute?
...................
What do you mean about the date being in dispute?
-
I found his statement very rudimentary. Perhaps it is supposed to be like that. :-\
-
The other thing...
None of the crime scne photographs show the rifle in a position against Sheila's neck, which could obscure a view of the two rather huge bullet entry holes on her neck? According to the evidence, no crime scene photo's were taken until after Dr Craig left the scene?
-
What do you mean about the date being in dispute?
The date of Dr Ian Donaldson Craig's statement as found by following the link you provided details a date of 7th August 1985. The same day as the shootings.
Given the Dr specifically mentions in this statement a quantity of dried blood from Sheila's mouth I would have thought the Dr would know the difference between dried blood and flowing blood. As such it would appear Sheila had been deceased for long enough to have a quantity of dried blood apparent. This would be consistent with Sheila having been dead for sometime and prior to 8.44 am.
-
The date of Dr Ian Donaldson Craig's statement as found by following the link you provided details a date of 7th August 1985. The same day as the shootings.
Given the Dr specifically mentions in this statement a quantity of dried blood from Sheila's mouth I would have thought the Dr would know the difference between dried blood and flowing blood. As such it would appear Sheila had been deceased for long enough to have a quantity of dried blood apparent. This would be consistent with Sheila having been dead for sometime and prior to 8.44 am.
It might also be consistent with him not mentioning the wet blood from the upper wound and the thin pools of blood which appear similar to fingermarks on the part of her neck outside of the line of flash. There are different types of blood on Sheila. (Difference in viscosity).
-
The date of Dr Ian Donaldson Craig's statement as found by following the link you provided details a date of 7th August 1985. The same day as the shootings.
Given the Dr specifically mentions in this statement a quantity of dried blood from Sheila's mouth I would have thought the Dr would know the difference between dried blood and flowing blood. As such it would appear Sheila had been deceased for long enough to have a quantity of dried blood apparent. This would be consistent with Sheila having been dead for sometime and prior to 8.44 am.
An Italian Pathologist studied the photograph taken after 10am by PC Bird, which shows wet looking blood running and pouring from the wound on her neck, and based on his findings the blood in question could not have been visibly dry on Sheila's neck at 8:44am, if PC Bird did'nt take the relevant photo' until after 10am...
Somebody ain't telling the truth, and if PC Bird did not start taking photo's until after 10am, I know who I'd be putting my money on, for lying about blood on Sheila's neck being dried at 8:44am?
-
An Italian Pathologist studied the photograph taken after 10am by PC Bird, which shows wet looking bkood running and pouring from the wound on her neck, and based on his findings the blood in question could not have been vibly dry on Sheika's neck at 8:44am, if PC Bird did'nt take the relevant photo' until after 10am...
Somebody ain't telling the truth, and if PC Bird did not start taking photo's until after 10am, I know who I'd be putting my money on, for lying about blood on Sheila's neck being dried at 8:44am?
Mike
Are you implying or suggesting the blood from the entry wound in the neck appears after the dried blood from the mouth has been witnessed by the Dr. According to the pictures on the forum the dried blood from Sheila's mouth had trickled either side of her mouth whilst on one side also collecting in her eye socket before trickling out of the side of her eye socket?
-
The other thing, Dr Craig told Ewen That Sheila's body was on the bed when he pronounced her as being dead - contact Ewen Smith and ask him yourself if you don't believe me...
Sounds like a job for Mat.
-
The date of Dr Ian Donaldson Craig's statement as found by following the link you provided details a date of 7th August 1985. The same day as the shootings.
Yes that's right, his statement is taken on 07/08/1985. I'm not sure I'm following you here. :-[
Given the Dr specifically mentions in this statement a quantity of dried blood from Sheila's mouth I would have thought the Dr would know the difference between dried blood and flowing blood. As such it would appear Sheila had been deceased for long enough to have a quantity of dried blood apparent. This would be consistent with Sheila having been dead for sometime and prior to 8.44 am.
Yes I agree, I don't believe the claims that her blood later becomes wet.
There is a reference to an officer describing her blood as running from her mouth, but I take that as a visual description rather than an assessment of the blood being wet or dry. I forget where that reference is now but I can dig it out if it becomes of further interest.
The photograph which appears to show wet blood, is actually a manipulated image and is a blown up, colour enhanced area of another photograph available at the original trial, i.e. I believe the wet appearance is due to the image being manipulated and recoloured rather than the blood actually being wet at the time of the photograph being taken.
Of course there was undoubtedly liquid blood retained in Sheilas mouth which could have spilled out if moved.
-
It might also be consistent with him not mentioning the wet blood from the upper wound and the thin pools of blood which appear similar to fingermarks on the part of her neck outside of the line of flash. There are different types of blood on Sheila. (Difference in viscosity).
That's an interesting point actually, the lower wound which lacerated her jugular could have continued to bleed for a longer period of time and continued to bleed after her arm was moved by the the police.
-
Yes that's right, his statement is taken on 07/08/1985. I'm not sure I'm following you here. :-[
Yes I agree, I don't believe the claims that her blood later becomes wet.
There is a reference to an officer describing her blood as running from her mouth, but I take that as a visual description rather than an assessment of the blood being wet or dry. I forget where that reference is now but I can dig it out if it becomes of further interest.
The photograph which appears to show wet blood, is actually a manipulated image and is a blown up, colour enhanced area of another photograph available at the original trial, i.e. I believe the wet appearance is due to the image being manipulated and recoloured rather than the blood actually being wet at the time of the photograph being taken.
Of course there was undoubtedly liquid blood retained in Sheilas mouth which could have spilled out if moved.
I think you are referring to Woodcock's statement. I am unsure as to how it would be possible to enhance thin pools of wet blood to appear upon Sheila's throat. I'd be interested to know who manipulated the image and when? Who is in on this manipulation?
For clarity, I'd appreciate it if Mike could list his latest theory on what took place and when, the circs of the alleged mishandling of the rifle. This would be helpful for me personally.
-
I think you are referring to Woodcock's statement. I am unsure as to how it would be possible to enhance thin pools of wet blood to appear upon Sheila's throat. I'd be interested to know who manipulated the image and when? Who is in on this manipulation?
For clarity, I'd appreciate it if Mike could list his latest theory on what took place and when, the circs of the alleged mishandling of the rifle. This would be helpful for me personally.
Yes that's it.
Oh no, your memory isn't in as good a nick as we thought. ;) Do you not recall your conversations with Bridget and I on this very subject? Where we (or rather Bridget) posted a side by side image showing you where it was from?
Trying to keep the number of images repeated to a minimum, but........
This photograph doesn't show wet blood right? : http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4315;image
It's being claimed that this photograph does show wet blood right? : http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=18724;image
But in actual fact, they are the same image, the latter having been enhanced for publication in a newspaper :
(http://i.imgur.com/q8BSH.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/B7C5f.jpg)
Yes that would be good, it does seem to change depending on what he's challenged with.
-
I disagree with the above suggestions - it is much more likely that some sort of dehenhancement took place, so that in the images produced by the police were designed to make some of the blood look more coagulated than it really was/is...
Police have the facilities to be able to transform images to favour thier own case...
At the end of the day, Essex police had control of 581 photographic negatives and as far as I am aware, 179 of these have gine missing. So, rather than some people saying that the defence or its supporters have enhanced images to create a false picture, not to be forgotten is that Essex police have the negatives, so if the blood is not wet simply produce the corresponding negative and let experts from both sides hammer the truth out? Police won't do that because they know Sheila did'nt die in the bedroom until after the police surgeon pronounced her dead at 8:44am...
-
I disagree with the above suggestions - it is much more likely that some sort of dehenhancement took place, so that in the images produced by the police were designed to make some of the blood look more coagulated than it really was/is...
Police have the facilities to be able to transform images to favour thier own case...
At the end of the day, Essex police had control of 581 photographic negatives and as far as I am aware, 179 of these have gine missing. So, rather than some people saying that the defence or its supporters have enhanced images to create a false picture, not to be forgotten is that Essex police have the negatives, so if the blood is not wet simply produce the corresponding negative and let experts from both sides hammer the truth out? Police won't do that because they know Sheila did'nt die in the bedroom until after the police surgeon pronounced her dead at 8:44am...
I think the defence has them actually, I'm not entirely sure of the details, maybe NGB would be able to comment?
-
I think the defence has them actually, I'm not entirely sure of the details, maybe NGB would be able to comment?
I don't think they have ever had access to any of the missing 179 or so photographic negatives...
-
Oh no, your memory isn't in as good a nick as we thought. ;) Do you not recall your conversations with Bridget and I on this very subject? Where we (or rather Bridget) posted a side by side image showing you where it was from?
Trying to keep the number of images repeated to a minimum, but........
This photograph doesn't show wet blood right? : http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4315;image
It's being claimed that this photograph does show wet blood right? : http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=18724;image
But in actual fact, they are the same image, the latter having been enhanced for publication in a newspaper :
(http://i.imgur.com/B7C5f.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/q8BSH.jpg)
I did have that Bridget conversation in mind. I'm not totally convinced that we are not seeing photos taken at different times from of the same position / angle. I'm struggling to understand how a defence team could pursuade a newspaper, to enhance a majorly sensitive crime scene photograph, to aid a convicted multiple murderer. In my mind that would imply a 'reverse conspiracy'. Something which I find far less likely than an original 'prosecution conspiracy'. Nor why a newspaper would enhance such a photograph off its' own back. This is after all, after a failed appeal which resulted in Judges issueing a comment to the effect that the more they looked at it, the more they felt Bamber was guilty. There is no impetus to stir up trouble, such as would result from the enhancement of a crime scene photo.
However, I am concerned that only one wet blood image is in the public domain. Not because I wish to see sensitive crime scene photographs of Sheila in the public domain... but why does only one photograph appear to exist? I do also see what you're saying. The poor image appears to be exactly the same angle as the vivid image. Also, on the blown up image, we cannot see the blood streams which have exited from the mouth, to compare.
-
I did have that Bridget conversation in mind. I'm not totally convinced that we are not seeing photos taken at different times from of the same position / angle. I'm struggling to understand how a defence team could pursuade a newspaper, to enhance a majorly sensitive crime scene photograph, to aid a convicted multiple murderer. In my mind that would imply a 'reverse conspiracy'. Something which I find far less likely than an original 'prosecution conspiracy'. Nor why a newspaper would enhance such a photograph off its' own back. This is after all, after a failed appeal which resulted in Judges issueing a comment to the effec that the more they looked at it, the more they felt Bamber was guilty. There is no impetus to stir up trouble, such as would result from the enhancement of a crime scene photo.
However, I am concerned that only one wet blood image is in the public domain. Not because I wish to see sensitive crime scene photographs of Sheila in the public domain... but why does only one photograph appear to exist? I do also see what you're saying. The poor image appears to be exactly the same angle as the vivid image. Also, on the blown up image, we cannot see the blood streams which have exited from the mouth, to compare.
I take your points.
I think something which really needs to happen, is for a photographic expert, such as Sutherst, to come out and say a photograph, any photograph, shows Sheilas blood to be wet, then the implications of wet blood would need to be examined.
Unless I'm mistaken, to date, the suggestion that the photographs show wet blood has only come from lay people.
Another thing which is more concerning to me, is that this 'wet blood' theory has never been used in a submission to the CCRC, when lesser theories have been included.
-
I don't think they have ever had access to any of the missing 179 or so photographic negatives...
That's not what I have been led to believe.
-
I take your points.
I think something which really needs to happen, is for a photographic expert, such as Sutherst, to come out and say a photograph, any photograph, shows Sheilas blood to be wet, then the implications of wet blood would need to be examined.
Unless I'm mistaken, to date, the suggestion that the photographs show wet blood has only come from lay people.
Another thing which is more concerning to me, is that this 'wet blood' theory has never been used in a submission to the CCRC, when lesser theories have been included.
Could we class the two Italian professors in the GDS period as an attempt to use the 'wet blood' theory? GDS has recently expressed that he felt it was a mistake for Bamber to concentrate on the silencer evidence and not to further pursue SC time of death instead.
-
Mike, would you be prepared to detail your own theory, from what you now suspect, in a similar format to this?:
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/what-really-happened
A numbered step by step account (of mainly the raid). Inclusive of the alleged mishandling of the rifle / informatives on site.
-
Could we class the two Italian professors in the GDS period as an attempt to use the 'wet blood' theory? GDS has recently expressed that he felt it was a mistake for Bamber to concentrate on the silencer evidence and not to further pursue SC time of death instead.
Time of death; and consistwncy of blood on Sheila's neck, go hand in glive with one another...
-
Could we class the two Italian professors in the GDS period as an attempt to use the 'wet blood' theory? GDS has recently expressed that he felt it was a mistake for Bamber to concentrate on the silencer evidence and not to further pursue SC time of death instead.
I haven't seen the details, but if it was legit why hasn't it been used?
I don't have a very good opinion of GDS, he was up on fraud charges wasn't he?
-
I take your points.
I think something which really needs to happen, is for a photographic expert, such as Sutherst, to come out and say a photograph, any photograph, shows Sheilas blood to be wet, then the implications of wet blood would need to be examined.
Unless I'm mistaken, to date, the suggestion that the photographs show wet blood has only come from lay people.
Another thing which is more concerning to me, is that this 'wet blood' theory has never been used in a submission to the CCRC, when lesser theories have been included.
I like this post. It could also be said that the interpretation by lay people that the blood looked wet has (seemingly) been done without comparing it to pictures of the blood of the other victims. For example, how 'wet looking' was the pool of Ralph's blood in the kitchen? Or how 'wet looking' was the blood on June's face? A simple comparison would be helpful to demonstrate that Sheila's blood was indeed wetter because the others had died hours before she had.
-
I haven't seen the details, but if it was legit why hasn't it been used?
I don't have a very good opinion of GDS, he was up on fraud charges wasn't he?
CCRC rejected their findings because they were based upon photographs, apparently. They also made errors, for example they described the pools of blood as entry/exit wounds. I can see how this could have happened because the pools obscure what is underneath them.
-
In respect of GDS. Is there an inference that the two medical professors could have been on his payroll? I think that's a bit naughty to be honest. ;D
-
CCRC rejected their findings because they were based upon photographs, apparently. They also made errors, for example they described the pools of blood as entry/exit wounds. I can see how this could have happened because the pools obscure what is underneath them.
You're not winning me over here. ;) It's difficult to form an opinion without seeing details.
I wonder if Macdonell referred to her blood as wet or dry. :-\
-
You're not winning me over here. ;) It's difficult to form an opinion without seeing details.
I wonder if Macdonell referred to her blood as wet or dry. :-\
Of course he did'nt, he only had the same photographs that Jeremys solicitors had access to, which did not include any images displaying wet looking blood. Police hand picked the photographs they wanted to disclose. It was easy for them to dehenhance the images in the police photography studio...
-
You're not winning me over here. ;) It's difficult to form an opinion without seeing details.
I wonder if Macdonell referred to her blood as wet or dry. :-\
Try this site. It contains the docs plus a clear image of the vivid / enhanced / blow-up photo, to assist in understanding the point I made about the pools obscuring.
http://www.studiolegaleinternazionale.com/bamber.php4
Regarding MacDonnell, his work is from the 90's I think. He will therefore not have seen any batches of wet blood photos. That seems to be the argument. Perhaps Mike can give an opinion.
-
Of course he did'nt, he only had the same photographs that Jeremys solicitors had access to, which did not include any images displaying wet looking blood. Police hand picked the photographs they wanted to disclose. It was easy for them to dehenhance the images in the police photography studio...
Mike, what do you make of reply 47? Is it worth a crack at (by you)?
-
Yes that's right, his statement is taken on 07/08/1985. I'm not sure I'm following you here. :-[
Yes I agree, I don't believe the claims that her blood later becomes wet.
There is a reference to an officer describing her blood as running from her mouth, but I take that as a visual description rather than an assessment of the blood being wet or dry. I forget where that reference is now but I can dig it out if it becomes of further interest.
The photograph which appears to show wet blood, is actually a manipulated image and is a blown up, colour enhanced area of another photograph available at the original trial, i.e. I believe the wet appearance is due to the image being manipulated and recoloured rather than the blood actually being wet at the time of the photograph being taken.
Of course there was undoubtedly liquid blood retained in Sheilas mouth which could have spilled out if moved.
The Drs statement is dated 7th August 1985 and is the first statement from someone who is medically qualified to at least Dr level which provides details of the state of Sheila's blood resulting from her wounds.
As such in my opinion it must be considered as reliable and accurate as opposed to those statements which can be fogged by the passing of time. If the defence have never disputed the date of the Drs statement then, in my opinion, the Drs statement has to be considered of high value.
The Dr in his statement mentions one wound per person deceased.......... For me he appears to be consistent for all victims in effectively nominated a fatal wound with death by gun shot. The specific details for all wounds are later dealt with at the Post Mortem stage which followed.
As I see it the Dr appearing at WHF and certifying all deceased was required so things could move forward after all have been declared dead thus making WHF a crime scene. This he did within 10 minutes. The first (Nevill) being certified deceased at 8.40 am and the last (Nicholas) being certified deceased at 8.50 am.
I think it will be found the site of a fatal road traffic accident only becomes a crime scene after a person involved in that accident has been certified deceased by someone who is medically qualified to do / conduct such a certification.
-
Thank you for doing this for us Hartley.
I wish to comment on a few things from that document if I may.
The first thing I noticed was the fact the doctor knew Nevill Bamber. He suggested that whoever killed him had rendered him incapable of fighting back, for he knew Nevill would have taken action. This is significant, because for it suggests there was no fight in the kitchen which is assumed by many of Bamber's critics.
I am amazed that a doctor of 30 years of experience did not notice two wounds to Sheila's neck. On the photographs we have seen it is quite apparent. I am surprised the defence did nothing to tare that evidence apart.
So the doctor said as far as he could see, Jeremy was grief stricken, worried about his dog and the murders were as suggested a murder/suicide. He clearly states that Jeremy appeared like any one would appear after a death of a family member..... :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
-
The Drs statement is dated 7th August 1985 and is the first statement from someone who is medically qualified to at least Dr level which provides details of the state of Sheila's blood resulting from her wounds.
As such in my opinion it must be considered as reliable and accurate as opposed to those statements which can be fogged by the passing of time. If the defence have never disputed the date of the Drs statement then, in my opinion, the Drs statement has to be considered of high value.
The Dr in his statement mentions one wound per person deceased.......... For me he appears to be consistent for all victims in effectively nominated a fatal wound with death by gun shot. The specific details for all wounds are later dealt with at the Post Mortem stage which followed.
As I see it the Dr appearing at WHF and certifying all deceased was required so things could move forward after all have been declared dead thus making WHF a crime scene. This he did within 10 minutes. The first (Nevill) being certified deceased at 8.40 am and the last (Nicholas) being certified deceased at 8.50 am.
I think it will be found the site of a fatal road traffic accident only becomes a crime scene after a person involved in that accident has been certified deceased by someone who is medically qualified to do / conduct such a certification.
DR Craig makes a distinction in Sheila's case that he only saw one wound at that stage, something he did not say in any other case. This suggests in the clearest possible terms that Craig knew a second wound was inflicted later. Another thing, Several different versions of Dr Craigs witness statement exist dated 7th August 1985, so which version should we take note of?
-
Mike, would you be prepared to detail your own theory, from what you now suspect, in a similar format to this?:
http://www.jeremy-bamber.co.uk/what-really-happened
A numbered step by step account (of mainly the raid). Inclusive of the alleged mishandling of the rifle / informatives on site.
Perhaps this diagram might help:-
-
This suggests in the clearest possible terms that Craig knew a second wound was inflicted later.
This is a point I tried to cover earlier (post #18).
If Craig had certified SC as dead at the stage he saw one wound, then the implication is that SC died of that wound. A second shot inflicted later could not have killed her again!
Is your theory that at the time Craig "certified death" SC was in fact still alive - so effectively Craig was a useless doctor, as he could not tell whether a person was dead or not?
The point (to me is) could the one wound, witnessed by Craig, could still have been administered by JB?
-
This is a point I tried to cover earlier (post #18).
If Craig had certified SC as dead at the stage he saw one wound, then the implication is that SC died of that wound. A second shot inflicted later could not have killed her again!
Is your theory that at the time Craig "certified death" SC was in fact still alive - so effectively Craig was a useless doctor, as he could not tell whether a person was dead or not?
The point (to me is) could the one wound, witnessed by Craig, could still have been administered by JB?
I still wonder, if as claimed by Hartley I think that the dr. didnt touch Sheila how could he be absolutely sure there were no signs of life? No one can look at a body and be certain without checking for slightest pulse etc. I have seen drs certify many deaths in the past. I have never seen a dr just look from a distance without some sort of even the most routine and basic test. imo
-
Perhaps this diagram might help:-
Mike
I am afraid your theory is inconsistent with a statement that is dated 7th August 1985 which is the same day as the killings and at a time when everything was still being treated as Jeremy had described i.e. the alleged telephone call from Nevill.
Dr Ian Donaldson Craig clearly states in his statement dated 7th August 1985....
'There was what I took to be a .22 rifle lying across her body with a muzzle pointing upwards towards her head and her right hand lying loosely over the butt. There was a quantity of dried blood which had come apparently from her mouth and what appeared to be an entry wound in her throat. I certified death at 8.44 a.m.'
This statement applied to a situation which was, at that time, being considered by all as a murder suicide. Indeed the next day the front pages of the national press proclaimed the events of a murder suicide at WHF in Essex.
The rifle is independently witnessed by a Dr to be on Sheila's body at 8.44am which is the time of Sheila's certified death.
According to your posted bullet point theory please can you explain how a Dr could accurately describe the result of Essex police, 90 minutes later, with a view to framing Jeremy and before the relatives or Julie Mugford had made any statements, moving a rifle from near a window and placing it upon Sheila's body with 'the muzzle pointing upwards towards her head' and her 'right hand lying loosely over the butt'?
-
He only mentions one wound on all the victims. He didnt go into greater detail because he knew that a Post Mortem would be taking place. I dont believe there is anything sinister in it.
Mike, could you post Bews and Myalls statements please. Fielders, too, if you have it, thanks .
-
I still wonder, if as claimed by Hartley I think that the dr. didnt touch Sheila how could he be absolutely sure there were no signs of life? No one can look at a body and be certain without checking for slightest pulse etc. I have seen drs certify many deaths in the past. I have never seen a dr just look from a distance without some sort of even the most routine and basic test. imo
A pointer toward the fact that Sheila may have " appeared " to be dead would have been the drugs inside her body,which would have slowed the pulse ( if the dr. felt one ) ,but her brain activity would not have been dead. But unless certain signs were examined,he couldn't have stated,from a distance,that she was dead. Because the heart stops doesn't always necessarily mean that a person is dead.
-
Do you think Sheila was still alive at this point, lookout?
-
Do you think Sheila was still alive at this point, lookout?
There's every possibility,Andrea. As brain activity wouldn't have ceased.
-
There's every possibility,Andrea. As brain activity wouldn't have ceased.
Thing is Lookout, I would hope I am never certified dead by a dr looking at me from a distance unless I'd been decapitated!! :o
-
Thing is Lookout, I would hope I am never certified dead by a dr looking at me from a distance unless I'd been decapitated!! :o
lol
-
Thing is Lookout, I would hope I am never certified dead by a dr looking at me from a distance unless I'd been decapitated!! :o
Clearly, for whatever reason, Dr. Craig was able to come to the conclusion that she was obviously deceased.
-
Thing is Lookout, I would hope I am never certified dead by a dr looking at me from a distance unless I'd been decapitated!! :o
Me neither,Maggie,,and mistakes have been made too.
-
Clearly, for whatever reason, Dr. Craig was able to come to the conclusion that she was obviously deceased.
Yes,and it would be interesting to find out what his findings were too.
-
Clearly, for whatever reason, Dr. Craig was able to come to the conclusion that she was obviously deceased.
I agree, he also knew that a post Mortem examination was going to be carried out at a later date, so he didnt need to describe all the wounds each victim had either. Just the fact that they had all been shot. IMO.
-
Yes,and it would be interesting to find out what his findings were too.
Well, he found out that she was dead, hence him certifying her death.
-
Clearly, for whatever reason, Dr. Craig was able to come to the conclusion that she was obviously deceased.
Well yes, apparently he could I am just giving an opinion as someone with a fair amount of experience in such situations and who has seen many doctors certify death. I understand he was very experienced but I would have thought it unusual. If as a nurse you call a doctor they attend and you tell them you found the person dumdedum etc and report no pulse or respiration etc. you would still expect and a doctor still would feel pulse, listen to chest for heartbeat etc., shine light into eyes just in case. He is responsible for writing the death certificate and is therefore responsible for any mistakes made. I am not attacking or accusing Dr Craig, I am just giving an opinion because of my own experience.
-
Well yes, apparently he could I am just giving an opinion as someone with a fair amount of experience in such situations and who has seen many doctors certify death. I understand he was very experienced but I would have thought it unusual. If as a nurse you call a doctor they attend and you tell them you found the person dumdedum etc and report no pulse or resperation etc. you would still expect and a doctor still would feel pulse etc. just in case. He is responsoble for writing the death certificate and is therefore responsible for any mistakes made. I am not attacking or accusing Dr Craig, I am just giving an opinion because of my own experience.
Maggie,when you think about it,,it's not as simple as it sounds to certify someone dead. The body just doesn't " die ",,,each organ in turn perishes,and as I said before,even though there's no pulse,doesn't mean a thing,as it's the brain that " kick-starts " the body into life when given CPR anyway,so being brain-dead,you can pretty well ascertain that that person is deceased.
-
Well yes, apparently he could I am just giving an opinion as someone with a fair amount of experience in such situations and who has seen many doctors certify death. I understand he was very experienced but I would have thought it unusual. If as a nurse you call a doctor they attend and you tell them you found the person dumdedum etc and report no pulse or resperation etc. you would still expect and a doctor still would feel pulse etc. just in case. He is responsoble for writing the death certificate and is therefore responsible for any mistakes made. I am not attacking or accusing Dr Craig, I am just giving an opinion because of my own experience.
No I didn't take it as you were and I've previously agreed with you that I'd have expected a more thorough examination to have been required, in order to certify death. Although I do not have any experience of such matters.
It may also be the case that Dr Craig was influenced in his assessment (in which he clearly came to the correct conclusion), by the information given to him by the police, the fact that they had been making challenges to the house in a siege situation for several hours without any sign of life (officially at least), and that the police had discovered Sheilas body some 45 (approx) minutes before Dr Craig arrived and witnessed to movement, even to a lay person, she was correctly assumed deceased.
-
No I didn't take it as you were and I've previously agreed with you that I'd have expected a more thorough examination to have been required, in order to certify death. Although I do not have any experience of such matters.
It may also be the case that Dr Craig was influenced in his assessment (in which he clearly came to the correct conclusion), by the information given to him by the police, the fact that they had been making challenges to the house in a siege situation for several hours without any sign of life (officially at least), and that the police had discovered Sheilas body some 45 (approx) minutes before Dr Craig arrived and witnessed to movement, even to a lay person, she was correctly assumed deceased.
I know Hartley....we just have to agree, that we find it strange. As I say I would have thought he should have made at least rudimentary checks as police tho they may have some knowledge are neither trained or responsible for death certificates. It's seems a little unprofessional...but again no accusation 8)
-
I still wonder, if as claimed by Hartley I think that the dr. didnt touch Sheila how could he be absolutely sure there were no signs of life? No one can look at a body and be certain without checking for slightest pulse etc. I have seen drs certify many deaths in the past. I have never seen a dr just look from a distance without some sort of even the most routine and basic test. imo
Hi mags, I agree that mistakes can be made, and if SC had entered a catatonic stupor then she may have looked dead.
Catatonia
Definition
Catatonia is a condition marked by changes in muscle tone or activity associated with a large number of serious mental and physical illnesses. There are two distinct sets of symptoms that are characteristic of this condition. In catatonic stupor the individual experiences a deficit of motor (movement) activity that can render him/her motionless. Catatonic excitement, or excessive movement, is associated with violent behaviour directed toward oneself or others.
Features of catatonia may also be seen in Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome (NMS) which is an uncommon (but potentially lethal) reaction to some medications used to treat major mental illnesses. NMS is considered a medical emergency since 25% of untreated cases result in death. Catatonia can also be present in individuals suffering from a number of other physical and emotional conditions such as drug intoxication, depression, and schizophrenia. It is most commonly associated with mood disorders.
(Catatonia can also be present in individuals suffering from a number of other physical and emotional conditions such as drug intoxication, depression, and schizophrenia. It is most commonly associated with mood disorders).
However; JB could still have administered the first shot some time earlier, SC lived and that's why her blood may have still been wet when photographed!!
The second shot, even if accidental and possibly inflicted after Craig had seen her body, may show further EP incompetence, but it does not necessarily exonerate JB.
-
Hi mags, I agree that mistakes can be made, and if SC had entered a catatonic stupor then she may have looked dead.
Catatonia
Definition
Catatonia is a condition marked by changes in muscle tone or activity associated with a large number of serious mental and physical illnesses. There are two distinct sets of symptoms that are characteristic of this condition. In catatonic stupor the individual experiences a deficit of motor (movement) activity that can render him/her motionless. Catatonic excitement, or excessive movement, is associated with violent behaviour directed toward oneself or others.
Features of catatonia may also be seen in Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome (NMS) which is an uncommon (but potentially lethal) reaction to some medications used to treat major mental illnesses. NMS is considered a medical emergency since 25% of untreated cases result in death. Catatonia can also be present in individuals suffering from a number of other physical and emotional conditions such as drug intoxication, depression, and schizophrenia. It is most commonly associated with mood disorders.
(Catatonia can also be present in individuals suffering from a number of other physical and emotional conditions such as drug intoxication, depression, and schizophrenia. It is most commonly associated with mood disorders.
However; JB could still have administered the first shot some time earlier, SC lived and that's why her blood may have still been wet when photographed!!
The second shot, even if accidental and possibly inflicted after Craig had seen her body, may show further EP incompetence, but it does not necessarily exonerate JB.
Yes, Nick you are right, there are many reasons why it seems odd. It may however, have been the way it was done at that time. Seems a bit hit and miss. imo
-
Yes, Nick you are right, there are many reasons why it seems odd. It may however, have been the way it was done at that time. Seems a bit hit and miss. imo
But his diagnosis of death, was correct, so whatever the perceived failings in his method were, he arrived at the correct conclusion.
If there was something which contradicts this and shows Sheila to have been alive at the time, then sure I could see the problem, but despite the claims from the likes of Mike, it's simply not the case.
-
I'm sure if someone was shooting me,,particularly if it was someone I knew,then I'd have mustered up enough strength to shout out the name,while the cops were there. So why didn't Sheila do that.? Why didn't she break a window with the rifle and shout down when she heard/saw the police cars.?
This has always baffled me. The first instinct is to try and get help however it's done.
There were enough windows to have got the attention of someone.
Or why didn't Sheila herself phone the police,there was an opportunity.
Perhaps the reasons were that she didn't need anyones' help.
-
If Sheila had " played dead ",then the opportunity would have been there to have told the police had anyone else been involved.
-
Yes, Nick you are right, there are many reasons why it seems odd. It may however, have been the way it was done at that time. Seems a bit hit and miss. imo
Mags (or anyone), would you care to comment of the following bit of my earlier post?
"However; JB could still have administered the first shot some time earlier, SC lived and that's why her blood may have still been wet when photographed!!
The second shot, even if accidental and possibly inflicted after Craig had seen her body, may show further EP incompetence, but it does not necessarily exonerate JB."
In my view EP incompetence does not = JB innocent.
-
Mags (or anyone), would you care to comment of the following bit of my earlier post?
"However; JB could still have administered the first shot some time earlier, SC lived and that's why her blood may have still been wet when photographed!!
The second shot, even if accidental and possibly inflicted after Craig had seen her body, may show further EP incompetence, but it does not necessarily exonerate JB."
In my view EP incompetence does not = JB innocent.
I mentioned this recently but put it in a different way. Nobody who veers towards guilt seems to have cottoned on to a scenario where both JB is the killer (responsible for first shot) and the police also bungle the raid. I do not believe this my self but I do feel that among posters who veer towards guilt, there is an aversion to the concept of police corruption. That might explain why nobody else seems to have been down this road.
-
Mags (or anyone), would you care to comment of the following bit of my earlier post?
"However; JB could still have administered the first shot some time earlier, SC lived and that's why her blood may have still been wet when photographed!!
The second shot, even if accidental and possibly inflicted after Craig had seen her body, may show further EP incompetence, but it does not necessarily exonerate JB."
In my view EP incompetence does not = JB innocent.
Nickos,,why,after that first shot,didn't Sheila summon help.? There was ample time to have phoned for assistance if a domestic argument had boiled over into what it did.
Nobody summoned help initially that night because the occupants didn't think that the situation would warrant it,,and it must have been terrifying to see, and believe what they saw.
-
I mentioned this recently but put it in a different way. Nobody who veers towards guilt seems to have cottoned on to a scenario where both JB is the killer (responsible for first shot) and the police also bungle the raid. I do not believe this my self but I do feel that among posters who veer towards guilt, there is an aversion to the concept of police corruption. That might explain why nobody else seems to have been down this road.
I think that's a bit unfair Roch, Nicks logic regarding this is quite sound in my opinion, although I don't accept the suggestion from you that there is an aversion of the concept of police corruption amongst people who have a view that Jeremy is guilty.
This isn't something that people haven't 'cottoned' on to at all, I don't accept the claims being made simply because they are unfounded and lacking in substance.
It has nothing to do with an aversion to police corruption, I'm not too naive to think to corruption within the police doesn't occur, but there is nothing which indicates to me that it has occurred in this case.
That's just speaking for myself of course. ;)
-
I think that's a bit unfair Roch, Nicks logic regarding this is quite sound in my opinion, although I don't accept the suggestion from you that there is an aversion of the concept of police corruption amongst people who have a view that Jeremy is guilty.
This isn't something that people haven't 'cottoned' on to at all, I don't accept the claims being made simply because they are unfounded and lacking in substance.
It has nothing to do with an aversion to police corruption, I'm not too naive to think to corruption within the police doesn't occur, but there is nothing which indicates to me that it has occurred in this case.
That's just speaking for myself of course. ;)
I do wonder if anything possibly could or would indicate to you that corruption had occurred. I reserve the right to treat with a pinch of salt your alleged lack of aversion to the concept of police corruption or your stance that it does occur... but not in this case. Without wishing to offend, a cynic might suggest that denial of police corruption goes hand in hand with a stance in the case. An acceptance of police corruption leads to the uncomfortable realisation of a need to readjust that stance. Therefore denial of corruption becomes a defensive crutch employed to avert the need to readjust a guilty stance. All just my opinion.
-
Specsavers for you then,Jam.
-
Nickos,,why,after that first shot,didn't Sheila summon help.? There was ample time to have phoned for assistance if a domestic argument had boiled over into what it did.
Nobody summoned help initially that night because the occupants didn't think that the situation would warrant it,,and it must have been terrifying to see, and believe what they saw.
Hi lookout, I believe the first shot to SC' throat may have actually rendered her unconscious hence she could not summon any help. I believe the pathologist has mentioned a potential for unconsciousness following the "throat shot".
If SC, following the throat shot, then entered a form of catatonia (through shock) she may have looked " lifeless" on the floor (or bed) for some time (alive; but looking dead). This may have also convinced JB that SC was dead.
If then (after Craig had seen her) the second shot was accidental , then that’s all it was.
I personally believe that no one got the opportunity to summon help that night, as they were all dead, or believed to be dead, before the murderer left WHF!
-
Hi lookout, I believe the first shot to SC' throat may have actually rendered her unconscious hence she could not summon any help. I believe the pathologist has mentioned a potential for unconsciousness following the "throat shot".
If SC, following the throat shot, then entered a form of catatonia (through shock) she may have looked " lifeless" on the floor (or bed) for some time (alive; but looking dead). This may have also convinced JB that SC was dead.
If then (after Craig had seen her) the second shot was accidental , then that’s all it was.
I personally believe that no one got the opportunity to summon help that night, as they were all dead, or believed to be dead, before the murderer left WHF!
Nickos,,what are your thoughts on that second shot having been " accidental " during what might have been a catatonic shock and not actual death. ? Bearing in mind that Jeremy would have been outside.
Also,,do you have in mind, anyone else who would have had a motive,or who may have overheard Jeremy at some time when he spoke " ill " of his family,,and who may have framed him.? Just a thought.
-
I mentioned this recently but put it in a different way. Nobody who veers towards guilt seems to have cottoned on to a scenario where both JB is the killer (responsible for first shot) and the police also bungle the raid. I do not believe this my self but I do feel that among posters who veer towards guilt, there is an aversion to the concept of police corruption. That might explain why nobody else seems to have been down this road.
As Hartley has said, it has nothing to do with "cottoning on", none of us have seen any credible evidence at all that the police shot Sheila, and the available evidence points to the contrary. In the absence of any reason for the police to either frame Jeremy, or cover anything up, there is no reason to suspect corruption in this case, but that doesn't mean we deny that it exists generally.
I do wonder if anything possibly could or would indicate to you that corruption had occurred. I reserve the right to treat with a pinch of salt your alleged lack of aversion to the concept of police corruption or your stance that it does occur... but not in this case. Without wishing to offend, a cynic might suggest that denial of police corruption goes hand in hand with a stance in the case. An acceptance of police corruption leads to the uncomfortable realisation of a need to readjust that stance. Therefore denial of corruption becomes a defensive crutch employed to avert the need to readjust a guilty stance. All just my opinion.
A cynic might also suggest that police corruption is a crutch widely used by pro-Bambers to explain the evidence against him, and the lack of evidence against Sheila.
-
Mags (or anyone), would you care to comment of the following bit of my earlier post?
"However; JB could still have administered the first shot some time earlier, SC lived and that's why her blood may have still been wet when photographed!!
The second shot, even if accidental and possibly inflicted after Craig had seen her body, may show further EP incompetence, but it does not necessarily exonerate JB."
In my view EP incompetence does not = JB innocent.
I agree with you Nick, this proves nothing. I only mentioned it because I found it a surprising way to certify death....one I had never seen before but I have never seen death certified at a murder scene. Hospitals etc are supposedly, a slightly more civilised environment.
-
Try this site. It contains the docs plus a clear image of the vivid / enhanced / blow-up photo, to assist in understanding the point I made about the pools obscuring.
http://www.studiolegaleinternazionale.com/bamber.php4
Regarding MacDonnell, his work is from the 90's I think. He will therefore not have seen any batches of wet blood photos. That seems to be the argument. Perhaps Mike can give an opinion.
You may have noticed that I pinched most of those documents from that site and posted them on here last year.
Can you speak Italian? We could put it through google translate I suppose, but without having access to the CCRC's reasons for rejection I'm afraid I am unable to hold an informed opinion.
-
I do wonder if anything possibly could or would indicate to you that corruption had occurred. I reserve the right to treat with a pinch of salt your alleged lack of aversion to the concept of police corruption or your stance that it does occur... but not in this case. Without wishing to offend, a cynic might suggest that denial of police corruption goes hand in hand with a stance in the case. An acceptance of police corruption leads to the uncomfortable realisation of a need to readjust that stance. Therefore denial of corruption becomes a defensive crutch employed to avert the need to readjust a guilty stance. All just my opinion.
Show me evidence that police corruption occurred in this case and I will accept it, the reason why I do not accept it is because I have not seen such evidence.
Nor have you, otherwise you would no doubt point it out to me.
Also, just my opinion. ;)
We could have a similar conversation about the Lochness Monster if you are a believer?
-
Nickos,,
1) what are your thoughts on that second shot having been " accidental " during what might have been a catatonic shock and not actual death. ? Bearing in mind that Jeremy would have been outside.
2) Also,,do you have in mind, anyone else who would have had a motive,or who may have overheard Jeremy at some time when he spoke " ill " of his family,,and who may have framed him.? Just a thought.
1) If the 2nd shot, fired accidentally whist SC was catatonic, and fired after Craig had seen her, then as previously stated it was simply accidental.
I still believe JB administered the first shot (probably both), and that if following the first shot, SC was catatonic, he simply left her for dead.
Anyone suggesting the second, and therefore fatal shot to SC, was administered "accidentally" or otherwise, by "the police", and that that the police are trying to cover this up, are in my mind simply trying to throw some off the scent, so to speak, in respect of JB's crime.
2) Mmmm, that's an interesting one. I have in the past toyed with a third party, or an accomplice, but all with JB's backing. It's down to that alleged phone call referring to SC - it didn't happen imo. Therefore it was JB.
As fascinating/intriguing as the story is, I do not follow that if EP accidentally shot SC, then JB must be innocent.
What concerns me is that if a cock up of this magnitude (1 above) happened and comes to light, EP and all there "evidence" will be thrown out, and a murderer based on a technicality (albeit a pretty big one!)could be released.
What seems to happen time and time again on the forum is that if one paints a dark enough picture against the relatives (and I am sure they were not all angels), the pathologist, the police (and they certainly screwed up), the doctors, Sheila, June, etc., then of course that must mean that JB is innocent, and imo it does not.
I made a statement some time ago to the effect that it is hard evidence that is needed to free JB (not hard evidence to convict him - he has already been convicted).
JB’s freedom is now dependant on him needing hard evidence to free him - and there is certainly nothing in the form of hard evidence on this (or any other) forum that will free him.
If JB’s legal teams had hard evidence he would be out, but they do not!
If the hard evidence eventually comes to light then so be it.
-
How many policemen were disciplined over the Bamber case and why were they disciplined ?
-
1) If the 2nd shot, fired accidentally whist SC was catatonic, and fired after Craig had seen her, then as previously stated it was simply accidental.
I still believe JB administered the first shot (probably both), and that if following the first shot, SC was catatonic, he simply left her for dead.
Anyone suggesting the second, and therefore fatal shot to SC, was administered "accidentally" or otherwise, by "the police", and that that the police are trying to cover this up, are in my mind simply trying to throw some off the scent, so to speak, in respect of JB's crime.
2) Mmmm, that's an interesting one. I have in the past toyed with a third party, or an accomplice, but all with JB's backing. It's down to that alleged phone call referring to SC - it didn't happen imo. Therefore it was JB.
As fascinating/intriguing as the story is, I do not follow that if EP accidentally shot SC, then JB must be innocent.
What concerns me is that if a cock up of this magnitude (1 above) happened and comes to light, EP and all there "evidence" will be thrown out, and a murderer based on a technicality (albeit a pretty big one!)could be released.
What seem to happen time and time again on the forum is that if one paints a dark enough picture against the relatives (and I am sure they were not all angels), the pathologist, the police (and they certainly screwed up), the doctors, Sheila, June, etc., then of course that must mean that JB is innocent, and imo it does not.
I made a statement some time ago to the effect that it is hard evidence that is needed to free JB (not hard evidence to convict him - he has already been convicted).
JB’s freedom is now dependant on him needing hard evidence to free him - and there is certainly nothing in the form of hard evidence on this (or any other) forum that will free him.
If JB’s legal teams had hard evidence he would be out, but they do not!
If the hard evidence eventually comes to light then so be it.
Nickos,,I don't mean to insult your intelligence in any way,but could you look up the term,Akathisia.
You see,,there is far more proof that Sheila carried out those killings while the balance of her mind was disturbed.
-
What seem to happen time and time again on the forum is that if one paints a dark enough picture against the relatives (and I am sure they were not all angels), the pathologist, the police (and they certainly screwed up), the doctors, Sheila, June, etc., then of course that must mean that JB is innocent, and imo it does not.
I made a statement some time ago to the effect that it is hard evidence that is needed to free JB (not hard evidence to convict him - he has already been convicted).
JB’s freedom is now dependant on him needing hard evidence to free him - and there is certainly nothing in the form of hard evidence on this (or any other) forum that will free him.
If JB’s legal teams had hard evidence he would be out, but they do not!
If the hard evidence eventually comes to light then so be it.
I think it would be extremely difficult for anybody to disagree with what you have written here.
-
As Hartley has said, it has nothing to do with "cottoning on", none of us have seen any credible evidence at all that the police shot Sheila, and the available evidence points to the contrary. In the absence of any reason for the police to either frame Jeremy, or cover anything up, there is no reason to suspect corruption in this case, but that doesn't mean we deny that it exists generally.
A cynic might also suggest that police corruption is a crutch widely used by pro-Bambers to explain the evidence against him, and the lack of evidence against Sheila.
I do not expect everyone to agree with me on the following and am perfectly happy for others to disagree...
My view on this is that if a person cannot see corruption in the Bamber case, then they are either not wanting to see it or they would be unlikely to recognise corruption in any other case either. Which leads to me to feel that some people do have an aversion to the concept of police corruption. In my opinion, this manifests itself in two ways. An absurd demand for evidence of corruption, as if police would evidence their own corruption, in a similar format to the evidence that they present when prosecuting a case. Also a repetitive insistance that every hint of corruption is merely a benign error or misunderstanding. Again, this simply leads me to feel that some do have an aversion as expressed.
-
I do not expect everyone to agree with me on the following and am perfectly happy for others to disagree...
My view on this is that if a person cannot see corruption in the Bamber case, then they are either not wanting to see it or they would be unlikely to recognise corruption in any other case either. Which leads to me to feel that some people do have an aversion to the concept of police corruption. In my opinion, this manifests itself in two ways. An absurd demand for evidence of corruption, as if police would evidence their own corruption, in a similar format to the evidence that they present when prosecuting a case. Also a repetitive insistance that every hint of corruption is merely a benign error or misunderstanding. Again, this simply leads me to feel that some do have an aversion as expressed.
Or perhaps the reason that we don't see corruption in this case is because none exists. There is also no reason for the police to have done anything corrupt - I think I've lost count now of how many times I've asked why they would need to lie or falsify evidence and not received an answer.
There are also those who appear to have an aversion to the concept of Jeremy's guilt, and hide behind the police corruption claim every time their argument stalls... just sayin' :)
-
I do not expect everyone to agree with me on the following and am perfectly happy for others to disagree...
My view on this is that if a person cannot see corruption in the Bamber case, then they are either not wanting to see it or they would be unlikely to recognise corruption in any other case either. Which leads to me to feel that some people do have an aversion to the concept of police corruption. In my opinion, this manifests itself in two ways. An absurd demand for evidence of corruption, as if police would evidence their own corruption, in a similar format to the evidence that they present when prosecuting a case. Also a repetitive insistance that every hint of corruption is merely a benign error or misunderstanding. Again, this simply leads me to feel that some do have an aversion as expressed.
That's good then, because I do not agree with you, I think you are being obtuse, which oddly enough appears to be the same thing that you are accusing others of. Oh well. :P
-
Or perhaps the reason that we don't see corruption in this case is because none exists. There is also no reason for the police to have done anything corrupt - I think I've lost count now of how many times I've asked why they would need to lie or falsify evidence and not received an answer.
There are also those who appear to have an aversion to the concept of Jeremy's guilt, and hide behind the police corruption claim every time their argument stalls... just sayin' :)
^^^ Yeah, that's what I should have posted. :-[
-
I do not expect everyone to agree with me on the following and am perfectly happy for others to disagree...
My view on this is that if a person cannot see corruption in the Bamber case, then they are either not wanting to see it or they would be unlikely to recognise corruption in any other case either. Which leads to me to feel that some people do have an aversion to the concept of police corruption. In my opinion, this manifests itself in two ways. An absurd demand for evidence of corruption, as if police would evidence their own corruption, in a similar format to the evidence that they present when prosecuting a case. Also a repetitive insistance that every hint of corruption is merely a benign error or misunderstanding. Again, this simply leads me to feel that some do have an aversion as expressed.
Hi Roch, I believe you may recall that indeed I am willing to accept that there may have been a form of corruption involved (noble cause).
We don't need to go over the detail again, but I believe it helped the Jury reach the right verdict.
-
It's not so much that the police lie. They're very sparing with the truth.
-
Or perhaps the reason that we don't see corruption in this case is because none exists. There is also no reason for the police to have done anything corrupt - I think I've lost count now of how many times I've asked why they would need to lie or falsify evidence and not received an answer.
There are also those who appear to have an aversion to the concept of Jeremy's guilt, and hide behind the police corruption claim every time their argument stalls... just sayin' :)
I personaly feel that it's flawed reasoning to suggest the police had no reason to be corrupt. How likely is it that a case would remain notoriously controversial for 27+ years, soley due to the machinations of somebody in prison, who couldn't even work out from the very beginning that if he told his girlfriend, there might be a chance he would end up in prison in the first place?
I also think it's disingenuous of you to suggest that you've never received an answer. You've received many answers about why police would need to use corrptive practices but on each occasion, you've chosen to write them off. The entire forum is based around this, so it's not possible for it not to have come up in forum conversation.
my own view is that he police are not going to deliberately provide evidence of a bungled raid / fabricated case, alongside their official case. I've already posted about how absurd I feel it is for people to actually consider that the police would kindly evidence their own corruptive practices, in a uniform manner similar to the actual prosecution case, to enable researchers many years later, to satisfy demands that people 'prove' corruption. It's like suggesting that a Bank which is cooking the books, retains a second record of it's actual (corrupt) accounts and publishes them, alongside the falsified set, just to help anyone who wants to reference that banks' corruptive practices having taken place.
There are many anomalies regarding date and location of silencer, i.e. custody in two places at once (just one example). No offence but people like you will always continually reject such evidence and sneer at it and scoff at. So what's the point in even debating?
-
A very good post there,Roch.
-
Nickos,,I don't mean to insult your intelligence in any way,but could you look up the term,Akathisia.
You see,,there is far more proof that Sheila carried out those killings while the balance of her mind was disturbed.
Akathisia - Okay I have looked it up.
"Akathisia is most often seen as a side effect of antipsychotic medications, such as Antipsychotics[13] such as haloperidol (Haldol),
I cannot see the connection between this, and your comment relating to far more proof that SC carried out the killings.
As far as I am aware SC was never diagnosed with Akathisia.
And the fact that SC was a diagnosed with schizophrenia is still not proof of anything, other than she was ill.
-
I personaly feel that it's flawed reasoning to suggest the police had no reason to be corrupt. How likely is it that a case would remain notoriously controversial for 27+ years, soley due to the machinations of somebody in prison, who couldn't even work out from the very beginning that if he told his girlfriend, there might be a chance he would end up in prison in the first place?
I also think it's disingenuous of you to suggest that you've never received an answer. You've received many answers about why police would need to use corrptive practices but on each occasion, you've chosen to write them off. The entire forum is based around this, so it's not possible for it not to have come up in forum conversation.
my own view is that he police are not going to deliberately provide evidence of a bungled raid / fabricated case, alongside their official case. I've already posted about how absurd I feel it is for people to actually consider that the police would kindly evidence their own corruptive practices, in a uniform manner similar to the actual prosecution case, to enable researchers many years later, to satisfy demands that people 'prove' corruption. It's like suggesting that a Bank which is cooking the books, retains a second record of it's actual (corrupt) accounts and publishes them, alongside the falsified set, just to help anyone who wants to reference that banks' corruptive practices having taken place.
There are many anomalies regarding date and location of silencer, i.e. custody in two places at once (just one example). No offence but people like you will always continually reject such evidence and sneer at it and scoff at. So what's the point in even debating?
Bearing all of that in mind, in particular the lack of evidence of police corruption (for whatever bloody reason), why is it that you insist the police were corrupt in this case? ???
Then also, again bearing in mind the complete lack of evidence of police corruption in this case (again for whatever bloody reason), why is it that you find it so difficult to comprehend that people aren't going to buy into the accusations without first seeing proof?
I'd suggest that people simply aren't willing to take the leap of faith that you clearly have.
-
A very good post there,Roch.
Here, Here :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
-
Bearing all of that in mind, in particular the lack of evidence of police corruption (for whatever bloody reason), why is it that you insist the police were corrupt in this case? ???
Then also, again bearing the complete lack of evidence of police corruption in this case (again for whatever bloody reason) in mind, why is it that you find it so difficult to comprehend that people aren't going to buy into the accusations without first seeing proof?
I'd suggest that people simply aren't willing to take the leap of faith that you clearly have.
We will go round in circles Hartley. I just cannot take your assessment of the levels of corruption in the case seriously. I find the statement above ludicrous, given what is known about the silencer and the records relating to it. Just forget it.
-
Akathisia - Okay I have looked it up.
"Akathisia is most often seen as a side effect of antipsychotic medications, such as Antipsychotics[13] such as haloperidol (Haldol),
I cannot see the connection between this, and your comment relating to far more proof that SC carried out the killings.
As far as I am aware SC was never diagnosed with Akathisia.
And the fact that SC was a diagnosed with schizophrenia is still not proof of anything, other than she was ill.
Nickos,,that's because they weren't aware back in the 80's that such a problem existed. As it was with Sheila,nobody ever knew how often she missed/forgot to take her medication.
The worst thing that happened was the reduction in her haloperidol,as that further increased her already fragile condition. Sheila had been diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic.
At the post-mortem,there was the faint trace of her last intramuscular injection of haloperidol and cannabis. No sign of the other prescription drugs that she had been written up for.
She may as well have swallowed TNT for the state the woman was in.
-
Hi Roch, I believe you may recall that indeed I am willing to accept that there may have been a form of corruption involved (noble cause).
We don't need to go over the detail again, but I believe it helped the Jury reach the right verdict.
Yes, I find your stance far more realistic, in the sense that it accommodates a form of corruption, albeit allegedly with noble motivations. I do not believe that you would form that opinion, without suspecting that corruption is indeed indicated, in your studies of the case.
-
We will go round in circles Hartley. I just cannot take your assessment of the levels of corruption in the case seriously. I find the statement above ludicrous, given what is known about the silencer and the records relating to it. Just forget it.
Sure thing.
I really do find it quite ludicrous that you can insist that police corruption has occurred in this case without providing evidence that it occurred.
Theories put together, submitted to and refused by the CCRC is not what I would accept as evidence.
We only go around in circles when you make accusations that anybody who holds a different view to your good self, is being obtuse.
-
Perhaps this diagram might help:-
Mike, I have only just seen this. Thanks for responding. I will studdy this after I have finished of checking the thread started by Curious about the phone bills.
-
Sure thing.
I really do find it quite ludicrous that you can insist that police corruption has occurred in this case without providing evidence that it occurred.
Theories put together, submitted to and refused by the CCRC is not what I would accept as evidence.
We only go around in circles when you make accusations that anybody who holds a different view to your good self, is being obtuse.
I'd rather avoid conflict on this if you don't mind. There's bags of evidence. Bags of it. It's written large all over the case. The fact that the CCRC have rejected this or that, is not evidence of there being no evidence. It is evidence that technicalities can be employed to reject evidence, rightly or wrongly, according to how the law is or is not supposed to work. Perhaps one day the barrier imposed by the CCRC will simply not be enough to contain matters any further. Maybe I'm wrong and it will.
-
I'd rather avoid conflict on this if you don't mind. There's bags of evidence. Bags of it. It's written large all over the case. The fact that the CCRC have rejected this or that, is not evidence of there being no evidence. It is evidence that technicalities can be employed to reject evidence, rightly or wrongly, according to how the law is or is not supposed to work. Perhaps one day the barrier imposed by the CCRC will simply not be enough to contain matters any further. Maybe I'm wrong and it will.
A way to avoid conflict would be to perhaps stop suggesting that anybody who holds a different view to yourself to be blind/obtuse/stupid/thick or anything else that you want to dress it up as.
Just saying. :-\
-
My view on this is that if a person cannot see corruption in the Bamber case, then they are either not wanting to see it or they would be unlikely to recognise corruption in any other case either.
So you've decided that corruption exists in this case and there's no room for any other position?
I don't want to take part in a conflict either, but I can't take you at all seriously with comments like the above, particularly when you constantly accuse anybody with a differing view as being single minded and not willing to entertain alternatives.
-
A way to avoid conflict would be to perhaps stop suggesting that anybody who holds a different view to yourself to be blind/obtuse/stupid/thick or anything else that you want to dress it up as.
Just saying. :-\
I hadn't suggested any of those things. What I had communicated is that from my time on the forum, I have noticed that some posters who support the guilty view, in my opinion, display an aversion to the concept of police corruption or are not prepared to accommodate corruption having taken place in this particular case because it would by default effect their stance.
But if we are going to go down the route you want (which I am trying my best to avoid), I would say that another way to avoid conflcit would be to ditch a supercilious tone, to anyone who holds a different view to you.
Just saying :-\
-
I hadn't suggested any of those things. What I had communicated is that from my time on the forum, I have noticed that some posters who support the guilty view, in my opinion, display an aversion to the concept of police corruption or are not prepared to accommodate corruption having taken place in this particular case because it would by default effect their stance.
But if we are going to go down the route you want (which I am trying my best to avoid), I would say that another way to avoid conflcit would be to ditch a supercilious tone, to anyone who holds a different view to you.
Just saying :-\
That's just not true, do you have an aversion to there not being any police corruption?
-
But if we are going to go down the route you want (which I am trying my best to avoid), I would say that another way to avoid conflcit would be to ditch a supercilious tone, to anyone who holds a different view to you.
You have got to be kidding me right? ???
Show me an example please.
-
So you've decided that corruption exists in this case and there's no room for any other position?
I don't want to take part in a conflict either, but I can't take you at all seriously with comments like the above, particularly when you constantly accuse anybody with a differing view as being single minded and not willing to entertain alternatives.
I don't accept the accusation. I doubt many forum members would agree with your accusation. Yes there is room for the position that no corruption has taken place. But I'm not duty bound to take that particular alternative position seriously, and I wont.
-
Corruption exists in the police force even today. Coppers on the take and, coppers falsifying evidence to make the crime fit.
What is apparent in the Bamber case is this. The Essex police have done themselves no favours an left themselves open for scrutiny. This was their first major crime and they cocked it up from the beginning. Whether they thought it was a murder/suicide or not, they failed to make WHF a crime scene. The Essex police are guilty of contaminating the scene and causing cross contamination with forensic evidence. Now that is a fact, read what they did with Sheila's hand swabs, read what they did with the PV'S it was one cock up after another, read about the requests for evidence from Bamber's and his defence team, read about the destruction of vital evidence that might acquit him, read about the appeal after appeal and yet they still destroyed vital evidence and withhold vital information...Sorry, but this where human rights and fairness breaks down..... :) :) :) :)
-
You have got to be kidding me right? ???
Show me an example please.
You've got serious form for it. Show me where I have dressed up implying that somebody is thick, please. Better still, let's end the issue now before it takes over.
-
You've got serious form for it. Show me where I have dressed up implying that somebody is thick, please. Better still, let's end the issue now before it takes over.
Again Rochy, your goading and making personal attacks, the only thing I've got form for is that I stand up for myself.
Anyway.
You said that police corruption occurred in this case, anyone who can't see that wouldn't be able to see police corruption anywhere.
I viewed that as arrogant and insulting the intelligence of people who have a different view, like myself for example.
But yes, let's end this here, if you want to carry it on then do so via PM and copy another mod in please.
-
Welldone Gentlemen!!
-
Nickos hope you are back for the party :) if it goes ahead :)
-
Nickos hope you are back for the party :) if it goes ahead :)
Are there question marks, Susan?????? Parties are such a pleasant way to reconcile, don't you think? Rather like the lovely soldiers during WW1. Both sides put their weapons down and shared Christmas.
-
Again Rochy, your goading and making personal attacks, the only thing I've got form for is that I stand up for myself.
Anyway.
In one breath you said that police corruption occurred in this case, anyone who can't see that wouldn't be able to see police corruption anywhere.
I viewed that as arrogant and insulting the intelligence of people who have a different view, like myself for example.
But yes, let's end this here, if you want to carry it on then do so via PM and copy another mod in please.
I was merely expressing my opinion that a refusal to accept the presence of corruptive practices in the Bamber case, could be linked to a personal viewpoint which is ill at ease with the notion of police corruption. Or linked to a very personal stance on the case. I added that in my opinion, the idea that corruption could be 'evidenced' in a similar format to other evidence was absurd, since it implied that a corruptive record was kept in order to facilitate such references. For example PC Blogg signs a witness statement that there were two silencers merged in to one, etc.
If I've ended up inadvertantly suggesting other members are thick then I do apologise. I have never thought other forum members were that. I have no desire to continue anything by pm but will of course cooperate if another member wishes to do so, with another mod included.
-
Nickos hope you are back for the party :) if it goes ahead :)
Hi Susan and April....I hope so, I am ready for a good time after the dreadful week I have had... :) :) :) :)
-
I was merely expressing my opinion that a refusal to accept the presence of corruptive practices in the Bamber case, could be linked to a personal viewpoint which is ill at ease with the notion of police corruption. Or linked to a very personal stance on the case. I added that in my opinion, the idea that corruption could be 'evidenced' in a similar format to other evidence was absurd, since it implied that a corruptive record was kept in order to facilitate such references. For example PC Blogg signs a witness statement that there were two silencers merged in to one, etc.
If I've ended up inadvertantly suggesting other members are thick then I do apologise. I have never thought other forum members were that. I have no desire to continue anything by pm but will of course cooperate if another member wishes to do so, with another mod included.
I've made my position clear.
-
Hi Susan and April....I hope so, I am ready for a good time after the dreadful week I have had... :) :) :) :)
Patti, how horrid for you. I think you should make the first one a very large one :) :) :) :) :)
-
I was merely expressing my opinion that a refusal to accept the presence of corruptive practices in the Bamber case, could be linked to a personal viewpoint which is ill at ease with the notion of police corruption. Or linked to a very personal stance on the case. I added that in my opinion, the idea that corruption could be 'evidenced' in a similar format to other evidence was absurd, since it implied that a corruptive record was kept in order to facilitate such references. For example PC Blogg signs a witness statement that there were two silencers merged in to one, etc.
If I've ended up inadvertantly suggesting other members are thick then I do apologise. I have never thought other forum members were that. I have no desire to continue anything by pm but will of course cooperate if another member wishes to do so, with another mod included.
It's your endless attempts to try to tell us why we think what we think that irritates Roch.. :)
-
Hi Roch
following the posts between you and Mr.Jam which did become a little heated on both sides but I never once saw any inference made by you that you thought any of the forum members were thick so no apology is needed.
-
Patti, how horrid for you. I think you should make the first one a very large one :) :) :) :) :)
already had my first april, just having a bit of galaxy, to give me some energy and make me fat...lol :) :) :) :)
-
Patti the fat will soon disappear when you and Mertol start the Morris Dancing :)
-
Patti the fat will soon disappear when you and Mertol start the Morris Dancing :)
Hilarious!!!!!!!!!! Best not upset Hartley and go onto the off topic thread where we can let our hair down...He can join us if he wants to....so long as he gets the beers in..lol :) :) :) :)
-
Hi april some parties are good for making up but others are fine to start with then the whole lot start fighting and end up before The Judge next morning we dont' want that april :)
-
Hi Roch
following the posts between you and Mr.Jam which did become a little heated on both sides but I never once saw any inference made by you that you thought any of the forum members were thick so no apology is needed.
It's ok Susan. Disagreements are caused by approaches to the case from differing angles as much as anything else. I try to think of a globe with lines going in to it, representing different forum members. I try to imagine other members coming in from a different direction and at a different elevation to my line. Never the twain shall meet.
-
It's ok Susan. Disagreements are caused by approaches to the case from differing angles as much as anything else. I try to think of a globe with lines going in to it, representing different forum members. I try to imagine other members coming in from a different direction and at a different elevation to my line. Never the twain shall meet.
Hey Roch, what about the meeting point of latitudes and longitudes :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
-
Hi Roch I suppose members have to have different opinions to beable to debate. Sometimes things come over differently than meant and as long as everybody kisses and makes up that is all that matters I have always thought children argue grown-ups debate and you and Mr. Jam are very passionate about your views :)
-
Hey Roch, what about the meeting point of latitudes and longitudes :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\ :-\
Well, let's say that I enter the globe at the tropics at 45deg angle, Hartley might enter at one of the poles from a more obtuse angle ;D (use of the word obtuse = joke)
-
Patti, how horrid for you. I think you should make the first one a very large one :) :) :) :) :)
Followed by a cigarette, and a glass of wine maybe ;) ;D
-
Nickos hope you are back for the party :) if it goes ahead :)
Hi Suzie I, Thanks for the invite, but I'm just dipping in (the Forum that is) before friends come over!
Got My Sharona by the Knack on at the mo. - brill!!
-
Nickos we are second best then. Sorry I am not winding you up but what do you have by the knack just now sounds painful :)
-
Well, let's say that I enter the globe at the tropics at 45deg angle, Hartley might enter at one of the poles from a more obtuse angle ;D (use of the word obtuse = joke)
Nice one ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Nickos we are second best then. Sorry I am not winding you up but what do you have by the knack just now sounds painful :)
;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Nickos we are second best then. Sorry I am not winding you up but what do you have by the knack just now sounds painful :)
;D sorry, but had pre-planned. Is this another susieism - not heard of the Jam, and now the knack (esp. My Sharona - it's a pop classic).
And I'm not in pain (yet) thanks :-* - see you - got to go, knock at the door ;)
-
Hi Maggie thought the Sharona was something Nickos was wearing or a woman he had by the neck. Not kidding just like I was not kidding about the Jam think I've just come from another planet but after all I do live in the far North os Scotland' :)
-
Hi Maggie thought the Sharona was something Nickos was wearing or a woman he had by the neck. Not kidding just like I was not kidding about the Jam think I've just come from another planet but after all I do live in the far North os Scotland' :)
How long since you've been south of the border susie?
-
Hi Mags when you say south of the border do you mean the border of Scotland and England or the border between Yorkshire and the other part of England the South my answer to that is 15 years but going from Scotland to Yorkshire is like going home :)
-
Hi Mags when you say south of the border do you mean the border of Scotland and England or the border between Yorkshire and the other part of England the South my answer to that is 15 years but going from Scotland to Yorkshire is like going home :)
No I meant the border of Scotland and England. I understand about going home, I fel the same about where I grew up. :'( :'(
-
Hi Mags
Back there very recently it is still my home but I also feel at home in Scotland so I am very lucky :)
-
Hi Maggie thought the Sharona was something Nickos was wearing or a woman he had by the neck. Not kidding just like I was not kidding about the Jam think I've just come from another planet but after all I do live in the far North os Scotland' :)
Susan, I hadn't got a clue what he was talking about. My knowledge of modern music ended in the 70s.
-
Susan, I hadn't got a clue what he was talking about. My knowledge of modern music ended in the 70s.
You were lucky April there was some dreadful stuff in the 80/90s that's for sure.......all those awful girlbands especially the Spice Girls.
-
Hi april/maggie I am more into the Dubliners and Rod Stewart. I am off pole dancing now you will have your party april Patti is in the wings getting warmed up but where is Mat watching football I guess. Never mind packagebuilder is on and he is always up for a little bit of Kingster :) ;) ;)
-
Susan, enjoy. Hope the pole isn't too slippery ;D ;D ;D ;D Sorry that you'll miss the party.
-
Thought I'd just chip in. I totally agree with Nikos on the two wounds to SC. the second,fatal wound bears no relevance IMO. How was the first administered? We've see the trajectory drawing. I can draw my own conclusion from that.as for Police corruption there is proof (that golden word) of police withholding evidence so there was an element of corruption,on what scale and if it made any difference I don't know. The twisting of interpretation of evidence presented as fact of late bemuses me. Mikes picture,first of the neck wound,(can't get it of the hard drive) which then becomes a photo showing tampon inserted,has now become tampon missing.... All I can say is I was a defiantly innocent.now I'm probably guilty. Please,please though,PROVE to me that I'm wrong.i am listening
-
Thought I'd just chip in. I totally agree with Nikos on the two wounds to SC. the second,fatal wound bears no relevance IMO. How was the first administered? We've see the trajectory drawing. I can draw my own conclusion from that.as for Police corruption there is proof (that golden word) of police withholding evidence so there was an element of corruption,on what scale and if it made any difference I don't know. The twisting of interpretation of evidence presented as fact of late bemuses me. Mikes picture,first of the neck wound,(can't get it of the hard drive) which then becomes a photo showing tampon inserted,has now become tampon missing.... All I can say is I was a defiantly innocent.now I'm probably guilty. Please,please though,PROVE to me that I'm wrong.i am listening
Hi tonyb :)
The first wound was done in an horizontal position....the 2nd one in my opinion is more relevant because it was done upwardly and to slightly to the right....which in my opinion confirms what Vanezes says, that Sheila was on her right side and flipped over from the 2nd shot.... :) :) :)
-
Hi tonyb :)
The first wound was done in an horizontal position....the 2nd one in my opinion is more relevant because it was done upwardly and to slightly to the right....which in my opinion confirms what Vanezes says, that Sheila was on her right side and flipped over from the 2nd shot.... :) :) :)
The first wound was done in a horizontal position....
Horizontal in relation to SC who was vertical?
You see this is what I'm don't see. The second bullet is of no significance at all. The first wound is the key
The wound trajectory indicates IMO the relationship of the barrel length to the body
-
The first wound was done in a horizontal position....
Horizontal in relation to SC who was vertical?
You see this is what I'm don't see. The second bullet is of no significance at all. The first wound is the key
The wound trajectory indicates IMO the relationship of the barrel length to the body
Yes I see where you are coming form. If one was to hold a rifle in position at the front of their body, where would they likely to shoot.....??????????????
Imagine that you had rifle and, you were going to shot your self, taking into account the rifle length? :) :) :)
-
Yes I see where you are coming form. If one was to hold a rifle in position at the front of their body, where would they likely to shoot.....??????????????
Imagine that you had rifle and, you were going to shot your self, taking into account the rifle length? :) :) :)
Put the butt on the floor and stick my chin over the dangerous bit?
But you've actually answered the question Patti.
You wouldn't fire into your neck holding it 90ish degrees to your body
Now suppose a third party shoots You in the neck. Imagine how they will do that and how the bullet is going to enter Your neck.
As I've said,the second shot means absolutely nothing in finding who is responsible.