Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: sc82 on April 18, 2011, 03:12:PM
-
Hi everyone, I've only recently joined the forum although i've been interested in Jeremy's case for a while. I've been reading a lot of different articles over the last few weeks and came across one which mentioned a theory that Sheila must have eaten after the others as she had food in her stomach and this could help explain why there was no traces of residue etc on her hands as she'd have washed her hands before eating.
What do you all make of that? It sounds plausable enough to me but i'm no expert. Apologies if this is going over old ground but what WAS found on Sheila's clothes/hands in the way of residue from the guns?
-
Hi everyone, I've only recently joined the forum although i've been interested in Jeremy's case for a while. I've been reading a lot of different articles over the last few weeks and came across one which mentioned a theory that Sheila must have eaten after the others as she had food in her stomach and this could help explain why there was no traces of residue etc on her hands as she'd have washed her hands before eating.
What do you all make of that? It sounds plausable enough to me but i'm no expert lol. Apologies if this is going over old ground but what WAS found on Sheila's clothes/hands in the way of residue from the guns?
As I understand it, no gun-related residue was found on Sheila's hands which is a big issue for me in terms of the idea that she fired the weapons. Also, her feet were clean which suggests she didn't walk around on blood-splattered carpet.
But as you say, these points have been debated a lot so worth looking through old posts.
P.S. don't mean to be rude but please don't use "lol" - this isn't Facebook! :)
-
Low levels of lead were found on her hands, but nothing like the amount that would have been there if she'd handled all those bullets and the gun.
There's a huge amount of information about it in the 2002 appeal because the handling (or mishandling) of the swabs were one of the grounds for appeal.
Here it is - good luck. ;D
Paras 175 - 232
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.htm
-
Low levels of lead were found on her hands, but nothing like the amount that would have been there if she'd handled all those bullets and the gun.
There's a huge amount of information about it in the 2002 appeal because the handling (or mishandling) of the swabs were one of the grounds for appeal.
Here it is - good luck. ;D
Paras 175 - 232
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.htm
[/quoteThis is one of the problems JB has, it's ok to say well the photos prove no marks on the wall but other evidence still proves he was the killer and i'm afraid this has never been disputed. Just because he over turns one point doesn't mean he gets a new appeal.
-
Low levels of lead were found on her hands, but nothing like the amount that would have been there if she'd handled all those bullets and the gun.
There's a huge amount of information about it in the 2002 appeal because the handling (or mishandling) of the swabs were one of the grounds for appeal.
Here it is - good luck. ;D
Paras 175 - 232
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.htm
Well in actual fact traces of gun residues are very fragile and can easily be washed off with general washing of hands. Avery good point to bring up if you ask me. Which points to if nothing else that Sheila Caffell was the last person to die? No blood on feet? Well she must have gone somewhere. What is remarkable though is that there are no bloodied footprints of ANYONE let alone Sheila Caffell's.
ps: has anyone thought that perhaps she stepped over any blood?
-
Low levels of lead were found on her hands, but nothing like the amount that would have been there if she'd handled all those bullets and the gun.
There's a huge amount of information about it in the 2002 appeal because the handling (or mishandling) of the swabs were one of the grounds for appeal.
Here it is - good luck. ;D
Paras 175 - 232
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.htm
Well in actual fact traces of gun residues are very fragile and can easily be washed off with general washing of hands. Avery good point to bring up if you ask me. Which points to if nothing else that Sheila Caffell was the last person to die? No blood on feet? Well she must have gone somewhere. What is remarkable though is that there are no bloodied footprints of ANYONE let alone Sheila Caffell's.
Then aliens must have done it. Or the little dog. Were ther bloodied paw-prints?
No, seriously, there MUST have been bloodied footprints - I am afraid this must have something to do with the botched police investigation.
-
I think if the file which has all the details of when the police thought it was suicide was released and not held under pii a lot more questions might be answered
The police must have thought for sometime that sheila was physically capable of the murders or the police would have started a murder enquiry right away
-
I think if the file which has all the details of when the police thought it was suicide was released and not held under pii a lot more questions might be answered
The police must have thought for sometime that sheila was physically capable of the murders or the police would have started a murder enquiry right away
I think it was some of the younger officers who began to think otherwise because of the continual pestering by Mr and Mrs Marple when they got no joy from Taff Jones?
-
If Sheila's right hand palm made the bloody hand print on her nightdress and they found no blood on her hands then she must have washed.
-
I think if the file which has all the details of when the police thought it was suicide was released and not held under pii a lot more questions might be answered
The police must have thought for sometime that sheila was physically capable of the murders or the police would have started a murder enquiry right away
They only thought see did it because JB said all along it was her but junior police suspected from day one something wasn't right.
-
If Sheila's right hand palm made the bloody hand print on her nightdress and they found no blood on her hands then she must have washed.
How could she have washed herself half dead lying in the kitchen and then running up stairs afterwards. She can't once she had died. Plus if she had her fingerprints would have been all over the gun and bible but they weren't.
-
I think if the file which has all the details of when the police thought it was suicide was released and not held under pii a lot more questions might be answered
The police must have thought for sometime that sheila was physically capable of the murders or the police would have started a murder enquiry right away
They only thought see did it because JB said all along it was her but junior police suspected from day one something wasn't right.
So Taff Jones only thought she did it because JB told him? So he didn't gather that knowledge by reading the crime scene then?
-
Shiela could have washed her hands before the first.
As for the lack off fingerprints the police could have wiped the gun after they had moved it about, and realising they can cocked up.
Remember they thought at the time it was suicide, so were unconcerned with prints.
-
If Sheila's right hand palm made the bloody hand print on her nightdress and they found no blood on her hands then she must have washed.
How could she have washed herself half dead lying in the kitchen and then running up stairs afterwards. She can't once she had died. Plus if she had her fingerprints would have been all over the gun and bible but they weren't.
I don't think she was half dead in the kitchen, I think that was a misunderstanding between the police.
-
sorry as people mentioned footprints....
We mainly have spots of blood all over the bedroom carpet. The pictures are not of the best quality for checking bloodspots on the carpet but in some pictures there appears the odd spot or two of what I think is blood on the carpet between Sheila's legs and between her left leg and the bed.
We obviously cannot tell what bloodspots may be concealed by her body, the socks on the floor or the bible.
I very much expect someone did tread on bloodspots. The main pictures are poor but there appear strong patterns of blood spots that do seem to tie in with some of the fainter harder to see blood spots.
We do not have prints as such but some wet spots trod on will go onto the bottom of footwear in patterns that can be spread as the person steps around. The resultant fainter stains having less blood in them not showing up as well in the pictures. I do beleive I have seen some of this happening but it is very hard to tell and be definitve on the issue.
Who transferred the spots...someone able to step on them when they were still wet enough to cause some transfer.
The police soon got rid of bits of the carpet it seems...why?..it does seem suspicious? Or was there footwear or socks about were responsible for clean feet while bloodspot transfer too place and these items have been erm neglected or not disclosed or lied about by those who should know better?
-
sorry as people mentioned footprints....
We mainly have spots of blood all over the bedroom carpet. The pictures are not of the best quality for checking bloodspots on the carpet but in some pictures there appears the odd spot or two of what I think is blood on the carpet between Sheila's legs and between her left leg and the bed.
We obviously cannot tell what bloodspots may be concealed by her body, the socks on the floor or the bible.
I very much expect someone did tread on bloodspots. The main pictures are poor but there appear strong patterns of blood spots that do seem to tie in with some of the fainter harder to see blood spots.
We do not have prints as such but some wet spots trod on will go onto the bottom of footwear in patterns that can be spread as the person steps around. The resultant fainter stains having less blood in them not showing up as well in the pictures. I do beleive I have seen some of this happening but it is very hard to tell and be definitve on the issue.
Who transferred the spots...someone able to step on them when they were still wet enough to cause some transfer.
The police soon got rid of bits of the carpet it seems...why?..it does seem suspicious? Or was there footwear or socks about were responsible for clean feet while bloodspot transfer too place and these items have been erm neglected or not disclosed or lied about by those who should know better?
The theory is that June walked around the bedroom when she was bleeding, so presumably she stepped in the blood. It's not clear if all the blood came from June though - the police didn't bother to check properly.
-
If Sheila's right hand palm made the bloody hand print on her nightdress and they found no blood on her hands then she must have washed.
Good point lebaleb +1
-
If Sheila's right hand palm made the bloody hand print on her nightdress and they found no blood on her hands then she must have washed.
Yes. It's important to know if the blood was from Sheila's hand, but nobody at the time seems to have checked. The defence suggested that Sheila had washed her hands and that's why there was no gun residue on them, so why on earth did they not follow up this hand print business? If they could have shown that she did indeed have blood on her hands at one point but none later, then obviously she either wiped her hands or she washed them at some point.
-
Sheila's hands.
First I would like to draw attention to Ralph's arm injuries...the deep gouges that are fully conversant with being inflicted by Sheila. Going by the rest of the evidence it can be nobody else..nor even another woman assailant is in the slightest credible.
There were no signs of treatment for the deep gouges inflicted...ie antiseptic cream , plasters etc so they are conversant with being inflicted within the critical events that night. No signs either of these Injuries depositing blood in the double bed.
The gouges by Sheila's finger nails are deep and would have contamininated Sheila's fingers beyond any reasonable doubt. That traces of Ralph were not found ( IF NOT either poor testing/sampling method) is credibly explained by Sheila washing her hands sometime after inflicting those injuries.
Now the question is raised is that did Sheila inflict these injuries of her own accord or was she compelled to do this at gunpoint by JB?
JB, being the master criminal genius that some contend, would consider that to direct blame on Sheila it would be a good idea to get her to inflict an injury on Ralph that would mislead everyone into thinking she did it. JB also being such a master genius would also know that there would be a high chance of the police expecting lead and gunshot residue on Sheila's fingers to be present if she was the killer so to cover for its absence but the presence of Ralph on her (fingernail scrapes and blood from inflicting Ralphs gouges) would show a mismatch of evidence that needed to be catered for. Hence master criminal JB being one step ahead of everyone compells Sheila to was her hands by threatening with the rifle.
One story seems far more credible than the other.
The blood smears on Sheila's nightdress from the pictures shown appear to be related to smears on her lower outer arm .
-
Jeremy might have forced Sheila to attack her father? I think we're entering the realms of fantasy now.
I agree that the blood stain on the nightdress appears to have come from Sheila's arm, but Vanezis did describe it as a palm print.
-
I agree kaldin...JM being the killer requires some rather fanciful thinking to fit with the evidence and I for one do not buy it.
Vanezis....hmmm there are disceprancies in the reports it seems.
If there was a palm print then it should have been recorded by photograph. The claims of no blood on her hands if there was a palm print do imply her hands being washed or some falsification of evidence.
People need to be careful ..that handprint does not become palm print etc
The fragmented bullet becoming a whole bullet undermines Vanezis somewhat. It could be explainable that he got all the fragments so claims it as a whole bullet though its low recorded weight suggests this is not a credible answer and his claims about other bullets show the claims about this particular bullet are not consistent with his overall approach.
-
The injuries to Ralph ARM are described in the pathologist report as being caused by repeated blows of the edge of a rounded object.
They are not described as fingernail gouges, that is Mike telling porky pies, nor are there any wounds to Sheilas arms.
I think its likely that the wounds were caused by repeated. blows of the. Anshulz rifle.
-
which part of the rifle would make such marks?
-
which part of the rifle would make such marks?
Not sure, the pathologist report said the edge of a rounded object, whatever that means. There are several lump and bumps and edges on the rifle, plus it clearly could have been used as a bludgeoning weapon from its brken stock, paint scratches. to aga and blood staining on the rifle itself.
-
which part of the rifle would make such marks?
Not sure, the pathologist report said the edge of a rounded object, whatever that means. There are several lump and bumps and edges on the rifle, plus it clearly could have been used as a bludgeoning weapon from its brken stock, paint scratches. to aga and blood staining on the rifle itself.
Has a rounded object got edges? :)
-
which part of the rifle would make such marks?
Not sure, the pathologist report said the edge of a rounded object, whatever that means. There are several lump and bumps and edges on the rifle, plus it clearly could have been used as a bludgeoning weapon from its brken stock, paint scratches. to aga and blood staining on the rifle itself.
Has a rounded object got edges? :)
A better description would have helped, but there the words that the pathologist used.
-
hartley posted;
The injuries to Ralph ARM are described in the pathologist report as being caused by repeated blows of the edge of a rounded object.
They are not described as fingernail gouges, that is Mike telling porky pies, nor are there any wounds to Sheilas arms.
I think its likely that the wounds were caused by repeated. blows of the. Anshulz rifle.
no apologies....The pictured injuries are finger nail gouges...as any reaonable person would concede.
It is a sign of desperation to come up with the claims you do Hartley.
There is nothing on the said rifle that would cause the marks claimed by you Hartley that are shown in the picture of Ralphs arm. The fingernail marks are totally conversant with his arm being gripped and finger nails used to gouge..ie orientation. Sheila's thumb being the other end of the grip.
This repeated blows...what end on??? a thrusting action eh... ...well to get any penetration from a thrusted tube (which is what the barrel would be) then Ralphs arm would need to be restrained against a solid firm surface to allow penetration of a rather blunt object. Sounds wierd but science tells us that this would have to be the case. It can be seen in the gouge marks how the skin has peeled back from gouging with finger nails which would not happen even within a sharpened tube.
oooh how did the butt of the rifle break in the kitchen ...leaving a fragment of wood to be found on the kitchen floor...let me think...
ah Sheila uses the rifle to inflict her first wound (hoping to succeed). pointed at neck 20 to 30 degree angle ..bang ..Sheila drops the rifle as she looses conciousness and the rifle drops onto the floor butt first as we expect it would causing the damage and wood splinter.
Wonder why there was no blood and skin from Ralph along the outside of the rifle...sounds like he was never struck with it? Thats a good reason .
ah but Sheila unconcious on kitchen floor...hmm she deposits some blood on the kitchen floor...being lino or tiles easily cleaned up...not the same for carpet.
What was used ..police say a scrubbing brush...hmm but maybe Sheila's knickers were removed and used eh and dropped in a bucket...easy to pass off as stained knickers from a period...not so easy of another item was used . Not essential for her knickers to have been used to clean up blood ..but certainly a credible possibility.
The evidence does clearly show Sheila either moved herself or was moved by someone several minutes after the first wound.
Dont bother with the discredited aga surround nonsense and the silencer nonsense as in my view they are consistent with fabricated false evidence.
-
As I said, not according to the pathologist who examined his body they are not. The pathologist report is on these forums in all its glorious detail.
-
hartley posted;
Not sure, the pathologist report said the edge of a rounded object, whatever that means. There are several lump and bumps and edges on the rifle, plus it clearly could have been used as a bludgeoning weapon from its brken stock, paint scratches. to aga and blood staining on the rifle itself
shall attach said part of the pathologists report that it seems "hartley" may be wrongly referring to.
Note the pathologist in that report makes no mention of the gouge marks that are clearly seen in the picture of Ralphs arm. He only mentions the bruise marks which cannot be related to the gouges.
One wonders why the gouge marks were not mentioned....Come up with your own ideas. The absence of an explantion could well be because the report was designed with the intention of prosecution in mind and such information about the gouges would aid the defence.
Missing out pertinent information can be just as deceptive as out right lying.
-
It's just a remarkable coincidence that the injuries which are incorrectly referred to as finger nail gouges are in exactly the same location then?
-
so Hartley ...mike is not telling porky pies at all and you are making clearly false claims about mike on this issue and also you make false claims yourself on this issue wether its from you being ignorant or otherwise ...you are in the wrong.
accept that and move on hartley ..the evidence is not what you want to hear...wishful thinking will not help debate either way.
people make mistakes.....ok no probs...ppl accept they were wrong and learn and if wise move on.
deliver some sound rock solid evidence that JB was responsible for I have seen nothing yet that comes close to such a description ever existing in the whole case.
-
The butt of the rifle,I presume,was used to strike Ralph round the head causing his skull to fracture.Could the rifle have not become broken this way?
-
hartley posted;
It's just a remarkable coincidence that the injuries which are incorrectly referred to as finger nail gouges are in exactly the same location then?
What stands out is that the pathologist only refers to bruises and opts not to even mention the distinctly different fingernail gouges which cannot have been inflicted with rounded ended object in the same way that the bruises were formed..fact.
Sheila attacked Ralphs arm...by gouging with her fingernails ...and she may also have attacked his arm with something else around the same time.
The picture shows both the bruises from a rounded ended object and the gouges from Sheila's fingernails.
-
hartley posted;
It's just a remarkable coincidence that the injuries which are incorrectly referred to as finger nail gouges are in exactly the same location then?
What stands out is that the pathologist only refers to bruises and opts not to even mention the distinctly different fingernail gouges which cannot have been inflicted with rounded ended object in the same way that the bruises were formed..fact.
Sheila attacked Ralphs arm...by gouging with her fingernails ...and she may also have attacked his arm with something else around the same time.
The picture shows both the bruises from a rounded ended object and the gouges from Sheila's fingernails.
Where are the pictures? can't find them.
-
deliver some sound rock solid evidence that JB was responsible for I have seen nothing yet that comes close to such a description ever existing in the whole case.
You can be as patronizing as you want, the pathologist refers to injuries to Ralphs forearm, you can't just decide that you don't like the description and then invent your own cause. You're concerned about evidence, where's the evidence that they injuries were caused in the manner you suggest.
Apart from all that, I wasn't discussing JB's guilt or innocence, when I said that I thought the rifle was responsible I did not suggest its wielder.
So with all due respect you can take your rude bully boy posts and gently place them where the sun doesnt shine. :-\
-
Nevill’s body also had black eyes and a broken nose, linear bruising to the cheeks, lacerations to the head, linear type bruising to the right forearm, bruising to the left wrist and forearm and three circular burn type marks to the back. The linear marks were consistent with Nevill having been struck with a long blunt object, possibly a gun.
Subsequent searches of this room revealed Nevill’s blood stained wristwatch under a rug and a piece of broken butt from the rifle on the floor.
The rifle stock was found to be damaged, with a piece of wood missing. The broken piece of wood found on the floor in the kitchen was the missing part of the stock.
-
Yes, other injuries were caused by the rifle, so its not beyond the realms of possibility that the forearm wounds were caused in the same way.
-
ah Hartley ..not an adult way to respond...have I touched a raw nerve,
back to debate..
attaching the picture.
While some of the bruises MAY have occurred from being struck with a rounded end object...from the bruise size..I would estimate something like a broad marker pen sized item being jabbed on his arm..if that was the true cause.
HOWEVER.....there is often one of them!!!..Gripping someone tightly.. too tightly can and does cause bruising and from a strong grip such bruises can be formed on someones arm in the manner of many of those seen on Ralphs forearm. Is it not the case that when strangling cases are investigate bruising is sometimes indicative...not always but sometimed...just to put things in perspective.
It is credible that some or maybe all of the claimed bruising on the arm may have arisen from Sheila gripping Ralphs arm very tightly.
-
Well its as credible as the wounds being caused in any other way without evidence.
If you head down that road, could the rifle or other object have caused the, could JB or another person caused them, could a farming accident the day before have caused them?
You want to say it was Sheila to place her in prime suspect position, that's the only reason.
-
ah Hartley ..not an adult way to respond...have I touched a raw nerve,
back to debate.
You were hardly debating, debating involves considering all the angles.
No raw nerve, just not interested in your points scoring method of forcing your opinion on someone. But oh well. :-\
-
smiffy you're making some good points. There's no need to goad Hartley. Just continue making your points... ;)
-
hartley posts;
Yes, other injuries were caused by the rifle, so its not beyond the realms of possibility that the forearm wounds were caused in the same way.
bullet holes in victims agreed...though from what I have read they did not go as far as to claim that the rifle was used to cause the being struck of banged into something type head injuries . They hint and suggest but that is really as far as they dared go.
Think of how a rifle may be used to strike another person. Swung when holding the stock/butt...will live a distinct linear line on the victim when the barrel end makes contact. As a swung weapon this way it would be very unwieldly and impractical. Nothing really points to this .
Swung when holding the barrel...again the balance is wrong and the small diameter of the barrel makes this highly likely to cause injuries to the hands of the person swinging it. Hard to swing but would make a big impact on the victim when struck.
Thrusting with stock/butt end...as per how they do it in war films ...more credible but helps if the vistim is already low to the ground.
If struck with the stock/butt end repeatedly ...it should show blood and/or hairs and skin fragments embedded into the butt and its wood and any gaps in the consrtruction of the butt. Especially so if the butt/stock becomes damaged in the process. Traces of this having occurred will be extremely difficult for anyone to remove.
It is possible Ralph was struck on the head with another object and not the .22 automatic rifle. If the forensic is not there to back it up ..then the claim looks rather hollow ..whoever was responsible.
Conversely if the rifle was dropped onto its butt onto a fairly clean surface to cause the stock/butt to be broken we would not expect to see blood/hairs or skin fragments .
If already used in attacking Ralph it may at that time have not been broken but could have later become broken when dropped in the act of commiting suicide.
Careful and honest and full reporting of the rifle is required to establish the most likely scenario for the rifles condition and whether some scenarios can be reasonably excluded or not.
-
ah Hartley ..not an adult way to respond...have I touched a raw nerve,
back to debate..
attaching the picture.
While some of the bruises MAY have occurred from being struck with a rounded end object...from the bruise size..I would estimate something like a broad marker pen sized item being jabbed on his arm..if that was the true cause.
HOWEVER.....there is often one of them!!!..Gripping someone tightly.. too tightly can and does cause bruising and from a strong grip such bruises can be formed on someones arm in the manner of many of those seen on Ralphs forearm. Is it not the case that when strangling cases are investigate bruising is sometimes indicative...not always but sometimed...just to put things in perspective.
It is credible that some or maybe all of the claimed bruising on the arm may have arisen from Sheila gripping Ralphs arm very tightly.
I broad marker pen? Size of a gun silencer?
-
You'll have to hit someone very hard indeed in order to break a bit off the butt of a rifle. Anyway why would anyone in their right mind turn a loaded gun round in order to hit someone with a rifle but, with the barrel towards themselves?
-
ah Hartley ..not an adult way to respond...have I touched a raw nerve,
back to debate..
attaching the picture.
While some of the bruises MAY have occurred from being struck with a rounded end object...from the bruise size..I would estimate something like a broad marker pen sized item being jabbed on his arm..if that was the true cause.
HOWEVER.....there is often one of them!!!..Gripping someone tightly.. too tightly can and does cause bruising and from a strong grip such bruises can be formed on someones arm in the manner of many of those seen on Ralphs forearm. Is it not the case that when strangling cases are investigate bruising is sometimes indicative...not always but sometimed...just to put things in perspective.
It is credible that some or maybe all of the claimed bruising on the arm may have arisen from Sheila gripping Ralphs arm very tightly.
They certainly look like the half moon shapes that nails might make on a person?
-
hartley posts;
Yes, other injuries were caused by the rifle, so its not beyond the realms of possibility that the forearm wounds were caused in the same way.
bullet holes in victims agreed...though from what I have read they did not go as far as to claim that the rifle was used to cause the being struck of banged into something type head injuries . They hint and suggest but that is really as far as they dared go.
Think of how a rifle may be used to strike another person. Swung when holding the stock/butt...will live a distinct linear line on the victim when the barrel end makes contact. As a swung weapon this way it would be very unwieldly and impractical. Nothing really points to this .
Swung when holding the barrel...again the balance is wrong and the small diameter of the barrel makes this highly likely to cause injuries to the hands of the person swinging it. Hard to swing but would make a big impact on the victim when struck.
Thrusting with stock/butt end...as per how they do it in war films ...more credible but helps if the vistim is already low to the ground.
If struck with the stock/butt end repeatedly ...it should show blood and/or hairs and skin fragments embedded into the butt and its wood and any gaps in the consrtruction of the butt. Especially so if the butt/stock becomes damaged in the process. Traces of this having occurred will be extremely difficult for anyone to remove.
It is possible Ralph was struck on the head with another object and not the .22 automatic rifle. If the forensic is not there to back it up ..then the claim looks rather hollow ..whoever was responsible.
Conversely if the rifle was dropped onto its butt onto a fairly clean surface to cause the stock/butt to be broken we would not expect to see blood/hairs or skin fragments .
If already used in attacking Ralph it may at that time have not been broken but could have later become broken when dropped in the act of commiting suicide.
Careful and honest and full reporting of the rifle is required to establish the most likely scenario for the rifles condition and whether some scenarios can be reasonably excluded or not.
Well all of that is theory and assumption and as such is meaningless.
Whilst perhaps not realistic in your mind, I could quite envisage the rifle stock end being used ad a bludgeon, particularly if you picture a two handed grasp on the weapon.
Likewise the dropping of the rifle when committing suicide comes across as ludicrous to me.
-
You'll have to hit someone very hard indeed in order to break a bit off the butt of a rifle. Anyway why would anyone in their right mind turn a loaded gun round in order to hit someone with a rifle but, with the barrel towards themselves?
How do you know it was loaded?
Could well have been unloaded, with killer getting ammo from kitchen?
Obviously Sheila didn't have pockets, so she needed to pop down to the kitchen a couple of times to get ammo.
-
You'll have to hit someone very hard indeed in order to break a bit off the butt of a rifle. Anyway why would anyone in their right mind turn a loaded gun round in order to hit someone with a rifle but, with the barrel towards themselves?
Out of ammo perhaps?
-
When the patholgist is saying rounded end he is meaning the contact face of the object being used to strike is rounded.
Like the ball end on a ball pein hammer.
The picture is scaled so some of the closest bruises (and most the rest appear to be of less than half an inch diameter implying an object likely to have a smaller rounded head than a ball pein hammer.
An unattached silencer would be too big in my view to cause those bruised if they were caused by jabbing. On the kitchen worktop near the phone are pencil /pen type racks.. and a couple seem to be on the worktop. It is possible something like a bic pen with its top on or something a little larger could be credible objects to cause such bruises by jabbing . I lean towards Ralphs arm being gripped very tightly.
It it was gripping tightly the closest to camera bruises may fit with the gripping done over the pyjamame sleeve as the bruises here look smaller and less intense than the ones futher down the arm. Those futher down also incorporating the gouging by nails that is more likely on bare skin . The sleeve possibly having ridden up Ralphs arm.
-
I am no gun expert but all the same do not feel a sporting rifle such as the claimed murder weapon would be anywhere near as strong as an old type military rifle as far as the stock/butt is concerned.
Military rifles being made in mind that the butt may need to be used as a bludgeoning weapon would be made far stronger.
A light sporting rifle will not be designed as strongly so be more likely to break if used to bludgeon or if dropped. (modern rubbish...if like many things...they dont make em like they used to...then build quality and material quality may be lacking).
fairs fair....tell it like it is..whether the point may support one theory or another or supports both.
-
When the patholgist is saying rounded end he is meaning the contact face of the object being used to strike is rounded.
Like the ball end on a ball pein hammer.
The picture is scaled so some of the closest bruises (and most the rest appear to be of less than half an inch diameter implying an object likely to have a smaller rounded head than a ball pein hammer.
An unattached silencer would be too big in my view to cause those bruised if they were caused by jabbing. On the kitchen worktop near the phone are pencil /pen type racks.. and a couple seem to be on the worktop. It is possible something like a bic pen with its top on or something a little larger could be credible objects to cause such bruises by jabbing . I lean towards Ralphs arm being gripped very tightly.
It it was gripping tightly the closest to camera bruises may fit with the gripping done over the pyjamame sleeve as the bruises here look smaller and less intense than the ones futher down the arm. Those futher down also incorporating the gouging by nails that is more likely on bare skin . The sleeve possibly having ridden up Ralphs arm.
The bruising may be from fingers, but just carried out a simple experiment with my kids, that makes me think not.
The spacing of the bruises are quite far apart, and do not match a finger pattern. Both kids when asked to grip tightly and pull my arm, placed their fingers close together, which is what most would do to apply force to an object.
-
I am no gun expert but all the same do not feel a sporting rifle such as the claimed murder weapon would be anywhere near as strong as an old type military rifle as far as the stock/butt is concerned.
Military rifles being made in mind that the butt may need to be used as a bludgeoning weapon would be made far stronger.
A light sporting rifle will not be designed as strongly so be more likely to break if used to bludgeon or if dropped. (modern rubbish...if like many things...they dont make em like they used to...then build quality and material quality may be lacking).
fairs fair....tell it like it is..whether the point may support one theory or another or supports both.
Apart from a loose trigger the Anshulz 525 is often described as superb build quality, in fact most Anshulz products are, they are high end items.
However that's all irrelevant, the stock was damaged, how that occurred we don't know.
-
When the patholgist is saying rounded end he is meaning the contact face of the object being used to strike is rounded.
Like the ball end on a ball pein hammer.
The picture is scaled so some of the closest bruises (and most the rest appear to be of less than half an inch diameter implying an object likely to have a smaller rounded head than a ball pein hammer.
An unattached silencer would be too big in my view to cause those bruised if they were caused by jabbing. On the kitchen worktop near the phone are pencil /pen type racks.. and a couple seem to be on the worktop. It is possible something like a bic pen with its top on or something a little larger could be credible objects to cause such bruises by jabbing . I lean towards Ralphs arm being gripped very tightly.
It it was gripping tightly the closest to camera bruises may fit with the gripping done over the pyjamame sleeve as the bruises here look smaller and less intense than the ones futher down the arm. Those futher down also incorporating the gouging by nails that is more likely on bare skin . The sleeve possibly having ridden up Ralphs arm.
The bruising may be from fingers, but just carried out a simple experiment with my kids, that makes me think not.
The spacing of the bruises are quite far apart, and do not match a finger pattern. Both kids when asked to grip tightly and pull my arm, placed their fingers close together, which is what most would do to apply force to an object.
Mind you, i just tried this myself, and come up with something different.
Can i smite myself?
-
permission granted pmsl ::)
-
from an online source;
4. Fingertip/pad bruises
Where an assailant has forcefully gripped a person, for example around the neck (e.g. during attempted manual strangulation) or arms etc, one may see small discoid or ovoid bruises in a cluster. These may be discrete, but are often blurred or may 'merge' with one another, due to the dynamic nature of assaults and struggles with an assailant.
-
Nevill’s body also had black eyes and a broken nose, linear bruising to the cheeks, lacerations to the head, linear type bruising to the right forearm, bruising to the left wrist and forearm and three circular burn type marks to the back. The linear marks were consistent with Nevill having been struck with a long blunt object, possibly a gun.
Subsequent searches of this room revealed Nevill’s blood stained wristwatch under a rug and a piece of broken butt from the rifle on the floor.
The rifle stock was found to be damaged, with a piece of wood missing. The broken piece of wood found on the floor in the kitchen was the missing part of the stock.
What do they mean by "linear"?
-
You'll have to hit someone very hard indeed in order to break a bit off the butt of a rifle. Anyway why would anyone in their right mind turn a loaded gun round in order to hit someone with a rifle but, with the barrel towards themselves?
Out of ammo perhaps?
Yes, or stupid? one of the two. That of course depends if someone is used to handling rifles or not. But of course I deliberately didn't mention sheila Caffell and you picked up on that. ;D
-
I think the wood broke off when the gun struck a piece of furniture. It would have to be very flimsy to have broken when it struck a person.
-
You'll have to hit someone very hard indeed in order to break a bit off the butt of a rifle. Anyway why would anyone in their right mind turn a loaded gun round in order to hit someone with a rifle but, with the barrel towards themselves?
It's possible Shiela wasn't in her right mind. I'm sure I read something about a poker somewhere to.
-
From the defence's submission to the CCRC in June 2004.
Even to a medically untrained eye the photograph of the right arm of Ralph Neville Bamber shows finger nail marks consistent with the assailant/attacker having gripped the deceased and having lacerated the skin with finger nail marks.
The finger nails of Sheila Caffell were examined. A post mortem photograph of her hands was indeed made available and formed part of the “Jury Bundle.” The said finger nails of Sheila Caffell were too long to have caused the laceration/indentation marks on the arm of Ralph Neville Bamber and the singer mark on the arm of June Bamber.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GBoXf__1A4QJ:www.studiolegaleinternazionale.com/downloads/bamber/BAMBERCCRC_addendum_06_06_2004.doc+bamber+2002+appeal&cd=57&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
There we have it from the horses mouth sort of speak. Sheila definitely didn't gouge either Nevill or June's arms.
-
No she didn't. Venezis didn't think they were nail marks and he is a trained eye, the killer may have jabbed them with the poker or some other object.
-
His "trained eye" failed him then .... he failed to report the lacerations/gouges and gave a totally bull story for how he thinks the "bruises" could have been made.
COULD ...I shall quantify here as being an extremely remote could have been the cause ie a tiny fraction of a percent chance of being the cause.
Using the word "could".....so what were the alernatives for using could means the writer is able to think of alternatives or even knows of alternatives that are far more credible.
As for the .22 rifle being the cause...
Any one who thinks such I declare to be a FOOL and ask them to show which part of the rifle they claim could have caused the marks and how.
I know they cannot answer that in any credible way ...mission impossible set.
Those marks on Ralphs right arm..were NOT caused by the rifle.
There is no doubt at all that the injuries on Ralphs right arm were incorrectly described and in being incorrectly described had a wrong cause attributed to them giving a misleading quality. The ommision of what were obviously vital photographs from the trial in this regard also could be viewed as being misleading or worse .
-
His "trained eye" failed him then .... he failed to report the lacerations/gouges and gave a totally bull story for how he thinks the "bruises" could have been made.
COULD ...I shall quantify here as being an extremely remote could have been the cause ie a tiny fraction of a percent chance of being the cause.
Using the word "could".....so what were the alernatives for using could means the writer is able to think of alternatives or even knows of alternatives that are far more credible.
As for the .22 rifle being the cause...
Any one who thinks such I declare to be a FOOL and ask them to show which part of the rifle they claim could have caused the marks and how.
I know they cannot answer that in any credible way ...mission impossible set.
Those marks on Ralphs right arm..were NOT caused by the rifle.
There is no doubt at all that the injuries on Ralphs right arm were incorrectly described and in being incorrectly described had a wrong cause attributed to them giving a misleading quality. The ommision of what were obviously vital photographs from the trial in this regard also could be viewed as being misleading or worse .
Good post +1
-
From the submission of 2004 that sandy referred to ;
Whosoever attacked Ralph Neville Bamber had finger nails at least 5mm-6mm long and certainly no longer but positively not shorter. Had the finger nails been shorter they could not have inflicted the wounds on the right arm and a similar wound on the arm of June Bamber. Whilst it c an be stated that Defence Counsel and the Appellate Court could have raised questions owing to the inclusion of the post mortem photograph of June Bamber’s arm, without a correlating, corroborative and accurate witness statement from Professor Vanezis would indeed lead to the only conclusion as formed in para 42 from the Court of Appeal.
There is no reasonable doubt the marks on Ralphs right arm were not inflicted by finger nails and the bruising elements linked to them by a forceful grip.
What does bug me here is the finger nail claim lengths mentioned.
at least 5mm-6mm long and certainly no longer but positively not shorter.
I personally think the range being specified is rather tighter than it should be. The variables that would apply are very great so something as specific as is implied is not a safe statement to make.
At least 5mm to 6mm can mean at least 6mm....so is expressed wrongly as 5mm is positively less than 6mm. Certainly no longer if taken the other way means no longer than 5mm but certainly is a weaker claim if compared to the use of positively in the same sentence.
Therefore we quantify the writers claims as "certainly" is not what it first appears to be. The writer thus is not so certain that the nails could not have been longer than 6mm at all.
If we rephrase that a little we get a a better clearer understanding... The writer is not confident that the nails could have been longer than 6mm... In other words the nails that inflicted the wounds may indeed have been a bit longer than 6mm but not too much longer.
On the other hand at the miniumum length of 5mm being expressed the writer shows more confidence by using "positively" but has undermined this by using 5mm-6mm ...a range rather than a specific minimum length. So realistically the writer is not all that condfident either in expressing a minium length so we can go beyond what the writer claims and allow for a minimum length of less than 5 mm.
Effectively ...we can widen the range to more credible figures in a safer way.
We express the estimated minimum length of nail as being 4mm and the estimated maximum length of nail as being 7mm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oddly another part of the same 2004 submission does appear strange;
The finger nails of Sheila Caffell were examined. A post mortem photograph of her hands was indeed made available and formed part of the “Jury Bundle.” The said finger nails of Sheila Caffell were too long to have caused the laceration/indentation marks on the arm of Ralph Neville Bamber and the singer mark on the arm of June Bamber. The Prosecuting Authorities failed however, to take any scraping from under her finger nails. The results could indeed have been matched to the finger nail lacerations on the arm of both Ralph Neville Bamber and June Bamber and could either have been proved conclusive and consistent with an attack from Sheila Caffell or exculpatory. Had the results of such tests been made known to the Defence, the Applicant and his then legal team may well have defended the case not by alleging the murderer was Sheila Caffell but indeed elected to state it was a third party
The line being taken is that neither Jeremy nor Sheila could have inflicted the fingernail wounds exhibited on Ralphs arm...IF THIS IS INDEED TRUE...then some real big stink is behind all this!!!
On the other hand , questions need to be raised as the claim that Sheila's fingernails were too long is not backed up other than by a loose claim of a pathological examination and a post mortem photograph being presented without detailing information of actual fingernail lengths.
now look at this part;
The said finger nails of Sheila Caffell were too long to have caused the laceration/indentation marks on the arm of Ralph Neville Bamber and the singer mark on the arm of June Bamber.
Please note the use of the word "and".
This is a vital link and how it is expressed allows for the finger nail claims to be TRUE only if it can be applied to both victims. If it cannot be applied to say June Bamber it does not follow that it could apply that the fingernails were too long for the injury on Ralph Bamber and vice versa.
In other words one of the victims ..the fingernails were too long for and the other they were not too long for.
But then there is more ;
The Prosecuting Authorities failed however, to take any scraping from under her finger nails. The results could indeed have been matched to the finger nail lacerations on the arm of both Ralph Neville Bamber and June Bamber and could either have been proved conclusive and consistent with an attack from Sheila Caffell or exculpatory.
To make this argument shows the lack of confidence in the claims about the finger nails being too long . Thus the claims about the finger nails being too long is weak or not correctly founded at all so it falls that in reality the writer is open to the finger nails being a possible credible source for the fingernail marks on Ralphs arm.
Sheila is thus not discounted at all from being the cause of the fingernail marks on Ralphs arm.
-
Lady Chelmsey posted;
The butt of the rifle,I presume,was used to strike Ralph round the head causing his skull to fracture.Could the rifle have not become broken this way?
Just how does the use of striking Ralph in the head with the .22 rifle (broken butt/stock one) actually stand up to scrutiny.
Taking the prosecution angle of Ralph being shot either 3 or 4 times in the bedroom would mean either and these cannot be the 4 fatal type later head shots..then it follows that he had to have an 1 or 2 gunshot injuries in his mouth /jaw area...unless of course the bullet cases are totally useless as evidence and any inferrals relied on their placement in the house be utterly ignored.
Ok taken these mouth/jaw injuries exist at this time we will have plenty of blood coming from them.
Using the butt/stock of the rifle to bludgeon Ralphs already bloodied and injured face at this time is going to be a very messy business leading to a lot of blood etc flying about and quantities of blood ending up on the rifle butt/stock. Such bludgeoning of Ralph with the butt/stock of the rifle places the assailant very close to Ralph and with a virtual certainty of being well soaked in splashing blood or contact smears of blood from Ralph...a very messy business.
Whoever your assailant of choice....they will end up with blood on them....mostly on their lower half but also credibly on their upper body.
The blood on the walls in the stairway seem more converant with a bloodied arms .
Problem is...if we take it (contrary to other evidence) that Ralph already had gunshot wounds to mouth and jaw prior to attack with butt of rilfle then our assailant will be well messed up in blood.
Our assailant needs to clean up themselves /and or clothes massively. If JB then we should expect a bloodied exit window ..none found . If Sheila...then was she naked or underwear only ?...and had a shower afterwards..
OR THERE AGAIN...the bullet wounds to Ralphs jaw and mouth happened in the kitchen after being bludgeoned seems more credible...OR the rifle butt/stock was not used to bludgeon Ralph at all.
Where the bullet cases were is not proof of anything and cannot be used to found theories on that are undermined by sound reasoning. Anyone...involved ...could have moved or knocked bullet cases around wittingly or otherwise.
-
His "trained eye" failed him then .... he failed to report the lacerations/gouges and gave a totally bull story for how he thinks the "bruises" could have been made.
COULD ...I shall quantify here as being an extremely remote could have been the cause ie a tiny fraction of a percent chance of being the cause.
Using the word "could".....so what were the alernatives for using could means the writer is able to think of alternatives or even knows of alternatives that are far more credible.
As for the .22 rifle being the cause...
Any one who thinks such I declare to be a FOOL and ask them to show which part of the rifle they claim could have caused the marks and how.
I know they cannot answer that in any credible way ...mission impossible set.
Those marks on Ralphs right arm..were NOT caused by the rifle.
There is no doubt at all that the injuries on Ralphs right arm were incorrectly described and in being incorrectly described had a wrong cause attributed to them giving a misleading quality. The ommision of what were obviously vital photographs from the trial in this regard also could be viewed as being misleading or worse .
You just can't win, I've already been criticised for using 'would' instead of could', now I can't use 'could'.
-
No she didn't. Venezis didn't think they were nail marks and he is a trained eye, the killer may have jabbed them with the poker or some other object.
Indeed so, I think I will accept the opinion of a qualified pathologist any day over that of someone who hasn't even seen the body never mind examined it.
Pure fantasy as usual. ;D
-
Excuse my ignorance but what is a 'singer mark'?
-
Lebaleb, do you know if this blood was tested to find out if it was Shiela,s blood.
-
Excuse my ignorance but what is a 'singer mark'?
Someone already asked me that a few days ago, I believe it is a misprint in the original text and should be a 'single mark'.
-
sandy posted;
Indeed so, I think I will accept the opinion of a qualified pathologist any day over that of someone who hasn't even seen the body never mind examined it.
so you have no common sense then sandy;
You prefer blatant untruth from someone who has a qualification over the truth from an impartial observer.
That makes your judgement worthless and gives you a credibility of zero.
You clearly cannot reasonably debate any issues so may well be ignored .
so you know the pathologist lied or made a gross error.... so you know jb was fitted up..so what is your motive sandy?
shows you have a nasty disposition in my view.
try redeeming yourself by saying something credible and wothy..or are you a no hoper?
-
Nasty is apparently your mo if the posts over the last few days are anything to go by.
For someone who has little experience of the case you certainly have grasped the wrong end of the stick.
-
I have a far better grasp on things over a short time than you have ever had it seems sandy.
Maybe that is down to my suprior intelligence and knowledge and wide experiences compared to yours and that I have no need to mislead or disrupt .
see no... baggage being carried...no bias one way or another or vested interests..but you appear to be carrying loads sandy..poor you.
-
Empty cans.....
-
sandy...you declared in another post in which you were being hostile to another poster that you clearly are not open minded at all in regards to this case.
That is wierd...unless you have an agenda..an agenda that does not sit well with discovery of the truth by others.
It is clear beyond ANY doubt a female gouged Ralph's arm that night. You cant deny it ..however much you want to...you know its true..and remains true despite all your fanciful claims and your desire for it not to be true.
It wont go away, sandy, the beliefs you hold or want others to hold face destruction utterly and totally.
you know it...I know it.
You post here sandy because you wish to deny the truth and fear and feel threatened by the undeniable truth coming out.. ..
I am not just good sandy..I am brilliant...and you wont like me and what I will be doing one little bit...
comment away ...for it will not stop the unstoppable...
I will have a nice day.. :)
-
Sandy, just ignore the lossy posters. ;D
-
Absolute nonsense smiffy, there is no evidence that a female gouged Nevill arms that night or any time before. Try reading the forensics.
-
Sandy, just ignore the lossy posters. ;D
Oh I do try.
+1 Simon ;)
-
the photographic evidence shows the pathologist to have given false evidence on that issue as you well know sandy as you are familiar with it.
flogging a dead horse on this issue sandy...
aww simong refers to lossy posters...meaning himself , sandy etc...clear for all to see eh
simong...obviosuly another that is in denial of the truth and without crediblity..
so obvious simong...so clear..so lossy...
not seen anything yet that clears sheila from killing the 4 others due to diminished responsibility.
-
So sad isn't it Simon?
-
The fact that this guy who seems a nutter has got +29 on posting worries the hell out of me. Who will admit to giving them that?
-
The fact that this guy who seems a nutter has got +29 on posting worries the hell out of me. Who will admit to giving them that?
Not me, but I don't join in with that smite/applaud business anyway. However, some of smiffy's posts have been very detailed and interesting about blood patterns, etc, so maybe he got the applauds for those. ;D
-
simong posted..about myself;
The fact that this guy who seems a nutter has got +29 on posting worries the hell out of me. Who will admit to giving them that?
Well I am no nutter...in fact I am a very responsible person and single parent father...you know parental responsibility awarded by court etc...
no criminal convictions..or points on driving licence I have held for over 30 years etc.
no mental health problems etc.
now you seem to have jumped to a "viewpoint" (seems a nutter) simong that has no substance very very easily....that could imply that you are a bad judge of character..or could be that you just choose to be hostile to someone who airs a viewpoint you oppose but rather than you challenge with reason ...you elect to namecall or smear by implication.
why should I worry the hell out of you? ...thats interesting...I like that.
I am capable simong....very capable..
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
back to sheila's hands
in the crime scene pictures the index finger of Sheila's left hand is differently positioned from the rest of her fingers on that hand...does anyone feel this is significant...?
could her left index finger have been strained in some way ...making it ..when dead appear more relaxed or something than her other fingers.
tendons weakend by injury in the distant past or recent past...could these have a bearing on this?
There is mention of a previous incident a while before the events of THAT NIGHT when she punched/struck glass and broke the glass with her hand/hands.
-
Smiffy, you seem to be quite knowledgable of this case, and a lot of the posters as well.
Can I ask why it took you so long to join this forum.
I am only curious, so you need not answer, thanks.
-
I only know two posters...from previous forums that are on this forum.
Nugnug I know from several forums and he is a perfectly reasonable fellow and though we disagree on some issues and have differences of opinion there is no abuse between myself and him.
John Lamberton ..who posts here under the names of "John" and "Sandy"...is another kettle of fish altogether. He is very well known on some of forums I have been on before and generally hostile to most other posters and has been caught lying and abusing people many times. His using multiple user names has occurred on every forum I have encountered him on or seen him using even when I have never joined those forums. He has used the sandy name and john names before on other forums and many other names as well.
I have only recently joined this forum as I was doing other things previously. JB's case started to attract my attention 6 months ago and prior to that I was unaware of just what a strong case of wrongful conviction it was.
Around the time of the murder the media seemed to alienate JB by portraying him as being some spoilt sort of rich boy and in my view that put myself off ...and probably many others ...from taking a close look or much interest at the time.
However much I may not like or approve of some peoples lifestyles or social status that are different from my own it does not in my view mean I should ignore cases of wrongful conviction and that innocent people should be jailed for crimes they did not commit.
What happened to JB as wrong and needs to be corrected and if my posts help then that can only be a good thing.
-
in the crime scene pictures the index finger of Sheila's left hand is differently positioned from the rest of her fingers on that hand...does anyone feel this is significant...?
could her left index finger have been strained in some way ...making it ..when dead appear more relaxed or something than her other fingers.
tendons weakend by injury in the distant past or recent past...could these have a bearing on this?
There is mention of a previous incident a while before the events of THAT NIGHT when she punched/struck glass and broke the glass with her hand/hands.
So how is this significant smiffy? I can't see the connection?
-
I only know two posters...from previous forums that are on this forum.
Nugnug I know from several forums and he is a perfectly reasonable fellow and though we disagree on some issues and have differences of opinion there is no abuse between myself and him.
John Lamberton ..who posts here under the names of "John" and "Sandy"...is another kettle of fish altogether. He is very well known on some of forums I have been on before and generally hostile to most other posters and has been caught lying and abusing people many times. His using multiple user names has occurred on every forum I have encountered him on or seen him using even when I have never joined those forums. He has used the sandy name and john names before on other forums and many other names as well.
I have only recently joined this forum as I was doing other things previously. JB's case started to attract my attention 6 months ago and prior to that I was unaware of just what a strong case of wrongful conviction it was.
Around the time of the murder the media seemed to alienate JB by portraying him as being some spoilt sort of rich boy and in my view that put myself off ...and probably many others ...from taking a close look or much interest at the time.
However much I may not like or approve of some peoples lifestyles or social status that are different from my own it does not in my view mean I should ignore cases of wrongful conviction and that innocent people should be jailed for crimes they did not commit.
What happened to JB as wrong and needs to be corrected and if my posts help then that can only be a good thing.
Thank you for informing us of these things smiffy.
-
One wonders why the gouge marks were not mentioned....Come up with your own ideas. The absence of an explantion could well be because the report was designed with the intention of prosecution in mind and such information about the gouges would aid the defence. Missing out pertinent information can be just as deceptive as out right lying.
Excellent point, Smiffy. A point that those of the JB was guilty school of thought need to properly address. Can you elaborate on this point? +1
-
I carry out statement analysis and the pathologists statement on Ralphs arm shouts to me in the strongest of terms that he knew full well what the real cause of the injuries were and that while not telling lies he was so economical with the truth that anyone listening or reading would be highly likely to be misled. There was out and out deception in my view on this issue because the truth of the injuries would support the claims JB made about the phone call from Ralph in which Sheila had gone crazy.
It would also place a female as being involved at the critical time.
-
I carry out statement analysis and the pathologists statement on Ralphs arm shouts to me in the strongest of terms that he knew full well what the real cause of the injuries were and that while not telling lies he was so economical with the truth that anyone listening or reading would be highly likely to be misled. There was out and out deception in my view on this issue because the truth of the injuries would support the claims JB made about the phone call from Ralph in which Sheila had gone crazy.
It would also place a female as being involved at the critical time.
What does "I carry out statement analysis" mean?
How do you draw these conclusions from the page you posted?
-
I carry out statement analysis and the pathologists statement on Ralphs arm shouts to me in the strongest of terms that he knew full well what the real cause of the injuries were and that while not telling lies he was so economical with the truth that anyone listening or reading would be highly likely to be misled. There was out and out deception in my view on this issue because the truth of the injuries would support the claims JB made about the phone call from Ralph in which Sheila had gone crazy.
It would also place a female as being involved at the critical time.
What does "I carry out statement analysis" mean?
How do you draw these conclusions from the page you posted?
I think he means that the statement is quite vague and lends itself to all manner of interpretation? And that the injuries could well have been made by SC as the statement is not precise on the amount of force used to inflict them? For this would depend on many factors such as the persons skin and how easily they bruise etc?
-
I carry out statement analysis and the pathologists statement on Ralphs arm shouts to me in the strongest of terms that he knew full well what the real cause of the injuries were and that while not telling lies he was so economical with the truth that anyone listening or reading would be highly likely to be misled. There was out and out deception in my view on this issue because the truth of the injuries would support the claims JB made about the phone call from Ralph in which Sheila had gone crazy.
It would also place a female as being involved at the critical time.
What does "I carry out statement analysis" mean?
How do you draw these conclusions from the page you posted?
I think he means that the statement is quite vague and lends itself to all manner of interpretation? And that the injuries could well have been made by SC as the statement is not precise on the amount of force used to inflict them? For this would depend on many factors such as the persons skin and how easily they bruise etc?
It reads to me like a scientist being honest about forensic limitations. If it isn't possible to draw accurate conclusions from the evidence then there is bound to be vagueness in the statement. Much rather that than a dishonest "expert" drawing absolute conclusions when the evidence doesn't warrant it.
-
I carry out statement analysis and the pathologists statement on Ralphs arm shouts to me in the strongest of terms that he knew full well what the real cause of the injuries were and that while not telling lies he was so economical with the truth that anyone listening or reading would be highly likely to be misled. There was out and out deception in my view on this issue because the truth of the injuries would support the claims JB made about the phone call from Ralph in which Sheila had gone crazy.
It would also place a female as being involved at the critical time.
What does "I carry out statement analysis" mean?
How do you draw these conclusions from the page you posted?
I think he means that the statement is quite vague and lends itself to all manner of interpretation? And that the injuries could well have been made by SC as the statement is not precise on the amount of force used to inflict them? For this would depend on many factors such as the persons skin and how easily they bruise etc?
It reads to me like a scientist being honest about forensic limitations. If it isn't possible to draw accurate conclusions from the evidence then there is bound to be vagueness in the statement. Much rather that than a dishonest "expert" drawing absolute conclusions when the evidence doesn't warrant it.
Exactly. That is why it is open to different interpretations.
-
simong posted..about myself;
The fact that this guy who seems a nutter has got +29 on posting worries the hell out of me. Who will admit to giving them that?
Well I am no nutter...in fact I am a very responsible person and single parent father...you know parental responsibility awarded by court etc...
no criminal convictions..or points on driving licence I have held for over 30 years etc.
no mental health problems etc.
now you seem to have jumped to a "viewpoint" (seems a nutter) simong that has no substance very very easily....that could imply that you are a bad judge of character..or could be that you just choose to be hostile to someone who airs a viewpoint you oppose but rather than you challenge with reason ...you elect to namecall or smear by implication.
why should I worry the hell out of you? ...thats interesting...I like that.
I am capable simong....very capable..
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
back to sheila's hands
in the crime scene pictures the index finger of Sheila's left hand is differently positioned from the rest of her fingers on that hand...does anyone feel this is significant...?
could her left index finger have been strained in some way ...making it ..when dead appear more relaxed or something than her other fingers.
tendons weakend by injury in the distant past or recent past...could these have a bearing on this?
There is mention of a previous incident a while before the events of THAT NIGHT when she punched/struck glass and broke the glass with her hand/hands.
Billy, You don't worry me, please read what i have posted. I couldn't care less about how capable you are. With the sane posters you have no credibility.
-
The pathologist did not speak of the lacerations that were inextricably linked to the second set of 4 bruises. By doing this deliberately a person listening could be lead into believing the claim that an object had been used was correct when it was not which was the intention of the person making the statement.
By keeping back key information the deception is carried out.
Options kept open...ok yes can agree with that...
however the options and truth would be far clearer if the relevant information about the wounds was given ... the linked lacerations...
These would have totally undermined the contended claims of being struck by an object that the pathogist contended into the realm of fantasy .
He knew from experience they were fingernail marks and grip marks yet misses out the identifying features that were present to avoid the truth.
HOW WAS THE PATHOLOGIST BEING HONEST?
he did not want to commit ..... by denying the presence of the lacerations the listener is kept from forming the correct viewpoint .
The pathologist offered a possible cause for only what he spoke of in the statement so was leading the listener to form a view. If he had not named a possible cause then and only then can the view be formed that he was not trying to persuade someone with dishonesty. He did name a cause that he could not have made had he spoke of the lacerations.
he spoke of a possible cause not for what he observed but for what he spoke of in regards to Ralph's arm. A cause that he could not claim had he spoke of all the RELEVANT injuries to Ralph's arm.
the truth , the "whole" truth and "nothing but the truth"...In my view the patholgist failed.
-
I shall now inform folks here that "simong" is also "john" aka "sandy"
The usual multi user name tactics of the dishonest John Braes Lamberton.
-
;D
Billy, Can you let my brother Paulg know that i am really called John. ;D
-
I shall now inform folks here that "simong" is also "john" aka "sandy"
The usual multi user name tactics of the dishonest John Braes Lamberton.
That's not so, smiffy, simong is simply simong, paulg's brother. He is not John P.
-
who cares who anybody is.
-
Smiffy obviously does. ;)
-
Smiffy obviously does. ;)
simong, how did you put the message to Hartley below the message line?
-
go to profile, modify profile and then put whatever you want in the signature section.
-
I shall now inform folks here that "simong" is also "john" aka "sandy"
The usual multi user name tactics of the dishonest John Braes Lamberton.
Is this smiffy nutter for real? I did read a bit this morning which has been posted about him and identifying him as Billy Middleton, a scam merchant apparently who runs the discredited wrongly accused website and forum from somewhere in the Shetland Islands.
http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/
It seems that this Middleton originally came to the attention of the authorities following the death of his daughter in a house fire for which his immediate family hold him responsible. It appears that there was insufficient evidence to convict this felon and he was released on a not proven verdict. I also understand his wife is pursuing him in a civil action.
I have also read the link to a site which goes into some detail of Middleton's past when he operated a pyramid selling scam apparently and defrauded many investors. I post the link for anyone who is interested in the real smiffy/nugnug.
http://simplybillymiddleton.myfreeforum.org/forum1.php
And before I finish I must mention that he apparently was extremely abusive to Mrs Stephanie Hall which resulted in her husband Simon demanding that Middleton remove all reference to his case from his website. As someone posted yesterday, what a nice guy!
Thank you to the member who filled me in on this character, apparently abuse is his middle name.
-
Smiffy, you seem to be quite knowledgable of this case, and a lot of the posters as well.
Can I ask why it took you so long to join this forum.
I am only curious, so you need not answer, thanks.
I believe I can answer that question Cliff, he only joined after someone posted a link to this site on another forum. He and his side kick Sandra Lean are my personal trolls and follow me everywhere. If I had not joined he would not have joined. He (Billy Middleton) is well aware of the Bamber case but he couldn't resist causing some additional nuisance on another forum.
According to his niece Stephanie Marie Adamson he is a child murdered so I think he feels some affinity with Jeremy. Birds of a feather do flock together! ;D
Sorry to diverse but I just had to put the record straight just in case someone got the misplaced idea that the guy was genuine.
-
Smiffy, you seem to be quite knowledgable of this case, and a lot of the posters as well.
Can I ask why it took you so long to join this forum.
I am only curious, so you need not answer, thanks.
I believe I can answer that question Cliff, he only joined after someone posted a link to this site on another forum. He and his side kick Sandra Lean are my personal trolls and follow me everywhere. If I had not joined he would not have joined. He (Billy Middleton) is well aware of the Bamber case but he couldn't resist causing some additional nuisance on another forum.
According to his niece Stephanie Marie Adamson he is a child murdered so I think he feels some affinity with Jeremy. Birds of a feather do flock together! ;D
Sorry to diverse but I just had to put the record straight just in case someone got the misplaced idea that the guy was genuine.
Thanks for the links, they are most revealing. :-*
-
go to profile, modify profile and then put whatever you want in the signature section.
Thanks, simong +1
I went in to mod profile to add a message, but saw the avatar thingy and ending up messing about with one of those instead. Will think of a message later.
-
mike makes mention of the injuries to Ralphs right arm as being caused by Sheila's left hand.
After studying the pictures of the gouges I am in total agreement.
-
I do not think that EP did a proper job of gathering scientific evidence to prove that Sheila killed everyone and that she then took her own life in the bedroom, because they were absolutely certain that she was responsible for all the deaths. I am not saying they did not gather any evidence, only that there was not such an intense gathering of it, say if the incident had been treated as a full scale murder investigation from the outset...
Not to be overlooked, is the fact that scenes of crime officers gathered evidence (under SC/688/85) for use at the Coroners court, not with a view to there being a criminal trial - which was eventually pursued after the creation of the second file (SC/786/85)...
I think the investigation overall was fundamentally flawed, because in the first instance, SC/688/85 was not carried out adequately with a view to proving that Sheila did it, and how she did it, they just knew she had done it, and just went through the motions, whereas the second part of the investigation (SC/786/85) was / is based upon an editing of the first investigations material, where any suggestion that Sheila could have been involved or responsible, was edited out...
-
I'm not sure that Sheila's hands were properly examined at th e time of the original investigation (SC/688/85), I think there was some sort of a mix up involving the hand swab evidence which cannot be overlooked and ignored easily...
DRH/33 - hand swabs evidence is dodgy to say the least...
-
the pathologists notes speaks of both hands but says bloodstains...not too clear but the plural use instead of singular may indicate bloodstains on both hands...open to interpretation really..
I had mentioned earlier about Sheilas left index finger sticking out differently from the other fingers.
The pathologist makes mention of an old scar on the back of her left hand...it is possible that the cut resulting in the scar may have damaged a tendon ..hence the sticking out finger..not 100% certain but a possible credible reason for what is seen with that index finger.
-
The pathologists hand written autopsy notes also mention a wristwatch being worn by Sheila on her left wrist.
This confirms the view from the pictures of what looked like a watchstrap must be the watchstrap for this watch.
-
There were no substantial quantities of any blood on her hands except for the small amount on her right hand as seen in the existing photographs. There was also no gun oil or residue from firing any gun on any of her hands.
It is thus quite obvious to anyone with the slightest titter of wit that Sheila could not have used the rifle.
-
If my hands are dirty for whatever reason , or preparing food or after using the toilet I wash my hands. That way they get clean.
There is no reason not to think Sheila did not wash her hands. The palm print evidence now revealed indicates that she did at some time.
People should stick to making posts that are sensible and not profoundly stupid.
-
If my hands are dirty for whatever reason , or preparing food or after using the toilet I wash my hands. That way they get clean.
There is no reason not to think Sheila did not wash her hands. The palm print evidence now revealed indicates that she did at some time.
People should stick to making posts that are sensible and not profoundly stupid.
I think it is quite credible that she washed her hands. What I find incredible are those people who don't think it is credible. :)
-
Is this in between shooting herself in the neck twice?? Try at least to come up with something logical.
-
If you look closely on the guardian video of the close up of the bloodstain on Sheila's nightdress near her hands ...what looks like a bloodsmear is in fact the palm print the pathologist spoke of.
his words on the handwritten autopsy notes after referring to the palm print were;
"also bloodstains R side of nightdress"
this must mean that in addition to the handprint...the bloodstains on the R side must be the main staining area by the underarm area.
Now that handprint is clearly a womans and clearly Sheila's .
This fact and being reported on as well ..forces the conclusion that either her hands were bloodstained or they had been washed.
-
Is this in between shooting herself in the neck twice?? Try at least to come up with something logical.
When doing a jigsaw do you not turn the pieces around to see if they fit. Sometimes the logical is not so obvious as we think it is.
-
Stating that a hand-print is clearly a woman's and so must be Sheila's without any evidence of any sort is bizarre...smacks of desperation.
-
i would of thought they would be able to tell if it was jeremys.
-
In regards to the palm print on Sheila he did use the word matches and R hand.
Looking at the palm print in the photos I have seen..there is a thin trace of blood from the edge of the thumb , a heavier more pronounced stain from the index finger...no middle finger print being seen(raised at the time it seems), the ring finger stain is more pronounced at the tip but also near the palm these is a most pronounced bit of staining (probably due to the ring helping retain/gather blood at the time the stain was made) and the little finger staining is more heavily marked nearer the tip.
The print is very credibly Sheila's own and is credibly orientated for being made by her own actions rather than one in which somone pressed her bloodied hand against her nightdress.
If someone had done that we would expect a more full print more resembling small childrens hand painting artwork.
-
Is this in between shooting herself in the neck twice?? Try at least to come up with something logical.
Who said anything about when the print was made. You have just assumed when it was made.
-
If my hands are dirty for whatever reason , or preparing food or after using the toilet I wash my hands. That way they get clean.
There is no reason not to think Sheila did not wash her hands. The palm print evidence now revealed indicates that she did at some time.
People should stick to making posts that are sensible and not profoundly stupid.
I think it is quite credible that she washed her hands. What I find incredible are those people who don't think it is credible. :)
she must have washed her clothes too as nothing was found on her nightdress also lol
-
If my hands are dirty for whatever reason , or preparing food or after using the toilet I wash my hands. That way they get clean.
There is no reason not to think Sheila did not wash her hands. The palm print evidence now revealed indicates that she did at some time.
People should stick to making posts that are sensible and not profoundly stupid.
I think it is quite credible that she washed her hands. What I find incredible are those people who don't think it is credible. :)
she must have washed her clothes too as nothing was found on her nightdress also lol
Well, I don´t know if this has anything to do with the shootings, but Sheila had put some clothes to soak in the scullery. As far as I know, a pair of pants, a blouse of some sort in one bucket and a pair of bloodied knickers in another. Those items, incredibly, were not seized by EP or examined in any way.
She COULD have changed into the nightgown. She was not wearing knickers at the time of death.
-
If my hands are dirty for whatever reason , or preparing food or after using the toilet I wash my hands. That way they get clean.
There is no reason not to think Sheila did not wash her hands. The palm print evidence now revealed indicates that she did at some time.
People should stick to making posts that are sensible and not profoundly stupid.
I think it is quite credible that she washed her hands. What I find incredible are those people who don't think it is credible. :)
she must have washed her clothes too as nothing was found on her nightdress also lol
Only what we have been discussing. The bloodied handprint if you care to read the past posts in the thread.