Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Caroline on January 13, 2016, 08:13:PM
-
Made a new topic for this because it's slightly different from David's.
I have a theory about Sheila's hands and why it was 'later' reported that they were clean. We know that Venezis's contradicts himself with his written notes and his final report (blood stained hands/ not blood stained). I 'think' EP forgot to photograph Sheila's palms and realised that questions would be asked. Venezis was at the meeting with SJ et al when they discussed who they thought was responsible, (Sheila or Jeremy). He now suggests that the stain on her nightdress looks like fingermarks and that the comment about clean hands was made 'after' she was washed.
-
Do you think they "forgot" or simply didn't bother initially because, as far as they were concerned, it was a suicide?
-
Made a new topic for this because it's slightly different from David's.
I have a theory about Sheila's hands and why it was 'later' reported that they were clean. We know that Venezis's contradicts himself with his written notes and his final report (blood stained hands/ not blood stained). I 'think' EP forgot to photograph Sheila's palms and realised that questions would be asked. Venezis was at the meeting with SJ et al when they discussed who they thought was responsible, (Sheila or Jeremy). He now suggests that the stain on her nightdress looks like fingermarks and that the comment about clean hands was made 'after' she was washed.
I think this goes back as well to the "palm" argument as it was indicated there was blood on her palms?
-
Which we thought transferred to a page in the Bible ?
-
I think this goes back as well to the "palm" argument as it was indicated there was blood on her palms?
That's what I meant.
-
I don't think we have seen any pictures of the palms at all .So you could be right.
-
The photographs available on the forum are quite limited. Perhaps there are photographs which have not made it in to the public domain that provide clear answers to these questions? :-\
-
Made a new topic for this because it's slightly different from David's.
I have a theory about Sheila's hands and why it was 'later' reported that they were clean. We know that Venezis's contradicts himself with his written notes and his final report (blood stained hands/ not blood stained). I 'think' EP forgot to photograph Sheila's palms and realised that questions would be asked. Venezis was at the meeting with SJ et al when they discussed who they thought was responsible, (Sheila or Jeremy). He now suggests that the stain on her nightdress looks like fingermarks and that the comment about clean hands was made 'after' she was washed.
See this thread:
jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4974.msg345728.html#new (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4974.msg345728.html#new)
-
See this thread:
jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4974.msg345728.html#new (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,4974.msg345728.html#new)
Can't see anything about photographing her hands - just about bagging Sheila's hands and the hand swabs.
-
The photographs available on the forum are quite limited. Perhaps there are photographs which have not made it in to the public domain that provide clear answers to these questions? :-\
The one photo that shows a particular angle of her hand is rather poor quality. Its a photo of photo and the flash don't help either but I have somewhat made it look more normal and clear
-
The one photo that shows a particular angle of her hand is rather poor quality. Its a photo of photo and the flash don't help either but I have somewhat made it look more normal and clear
No, I'm talking about the inside of her hands. I don't think they got photographed so to make up for this, they just said her hands were clean, but the evidence doesn't support this - in my opinion.
-
No, I'm talking about the inside of her hands. I don't think they got photographed so to make up for this, they just said her hands were clean, but the evidence doesn't support this - in my opinion.
There are what appear to be three finger marks on the night dress were her finger would have rubbed :-\
-
There are what appear to be three finger marks on the night dress were her finger would have rubbed :-\
I know, that's what I am talking about ;D ;D
-
I know, that's what I am talking about ;D ;D
its certainly a discrepancy. I guess if you want a straight answer you would have to show vanezis that photo and ask him to explain
-
its certainly a discrepancy. I guess if you want a straight answer you would have to show vanezis that photo and ask him to explain
He has already answered the discrepancy, he said the stain looks like finger prints (Carol Anne Lee's book) so seems to be agreeing with his original observations.
-
There are what appear to be three finger marks on the night dress were her finger would have rubbed :-\
They are blood stains transferred from Sheilas wrist on to folds on her night dress.
-
Can't see anything about photographing her hands - just about bagging Sheila's hands and the hand swabs.
Well you haven't looked closely enough then.
-
1. Vanezis says that her hands were not contaminated apart from with blood.
2. Davidson says bags were placed on Sheilas hands whilst her body was in situ at WHF.
3. Hammersley says bags were placed on Sheilas hands whilst her body was in situ at WHF.
4. Davidson says the bags were removed prior to post mortem and hand swabs were taken before washing, he says no police officer would allow washing of the body before hand swabs were taken.
5. Hammersley (who took the swabs) says the swabs appeared clean to the eye.
6. Hammersley says that both of Sheilas hands were clean and free of debris except for "blood staining on the top surface of her right hand towards her wrist".
7. Vanezis says her palm and fingers were free from blood.
8. MacDonnell says that he has seen photographs showing Sheilas hands to be free from blood, but does not know if the body had been washed.
Despite all of this, Caroline decides that if she applies some red paint to her hand, she can make a mark on a piece of paper claiming it proves a bloody palm print is on the bible. She then decides that this proves that Sheilas palms WERE covered in blood.
Fair enough, but personally I don't agree with her reasoning, despite the number of times it gets repeated as if it is fact. Sorry.
-
They are blood stains transferred from Sheilas wrist on to folds on her night dress.
Wrist ? They look like fingers to me.
-
1. Vanezis says that her hands were not contaminated apart from blood. Yes, so they had blood on them but he also said 'initially' that there was a palm print on her nightdress which appeared to have been transferred from her right hand. He wouldn't assume this if her hands were clean
2. Davidson says bags were placed on Sheilas hands whilst her body was in situ at WHF.
3. Hammersley says bags were placed on Sheilas hands whilst her body was in situ at WHF.
4. Davidson says the bags were removed prior to post mortem and hand swabs were taken before washing, he says no police officer would allow washing of the body before hand swabs were taken. Well he would wouldn't he?
5. Hammersley (who took the swabs) says the swabs appeared clean to the eye. Again, if they forgot to take pictures he would.
6. Hammersley says that both of Sheilas hands were clean and free of debris except for "blood staining on the top surface of her right hand towards her wrist". As above
7. Vanezis says her palm and fingers were free from blood. But now he is again contradicting what he said when interviwed by Carol Ann Lee.
8. MacDonnell says that he has seen photographs showing Sheilas hands to be free from blood, but does not know if the body had been washed. Exactly
Despite all of this, Caroline decides that if she applies some red paint to her hand, she can make a mark on a piece of paper claiming it proves a bloody palm print is on the bible. She then decides that this proves that Sheilas palms WERE covered in blood. That's not really fair H and it has nothing to do with red paint - that was simply to show that the print on the bible looked like a palm print and nothing to do with Sheila simply having blood stains on her right hand - that had everything to do with Venezis's written notes, notes he took at the autopsy.
Fair enough, but personally I don't agree with her reasoning, despite the number of times it gets repeated as if it is fact. Sorry. No need to apologise, I'm not looking for approval - if I was, this isn't thisn't the place to seek it. ;D ;D ;D
-
They are blood stains transferred from Sheilas wrist on to folds on her night dress.
Even Venezis disagrees with this now - it is a VERY weak excuse and they look nothing like blood trails. The blood trails on her arms, had to come from somewhere - or are you saying that they just started at her wrist? ???
-
Those trails on Sheila's forearm look like wounds to me,but what sort of wounds I'm not sure.
-
I don't quite understand the blood trails from under her armpit and over the top of her arms as if she was leant sideways at one point
-
Even Venezis disagrees with this now - it is a VERY weak excuse and they look nothing like blood trails. The blood trails on her arms, had to come from somewhere - or are you saying that they just started at her wrist? ???
The blood on her arm has transferred from the wounds in her neck, then dripped down her arm.
Not really sure what else you are suggesting? :-\
-
The blood on her arm has transferred from the wounds in her neck, then dripped down her arm.
Not really sure what else you are suggesting? :-\
The lower shot was inflicted while she was sitting upwards, This caused haemorrhage to the external jugular vein. In my opinion the blood on her arm and arm pit area got their via blood squirting and help of gravity even if only for a second or two
-
The blood on her arm has transferred from the wounds in her neck, then dripped down her arm.
Not really sure what else you are suggesting? :-\
That it must have been on her hand to travel down her arm.
-
That it must have been on her hand to travel down her arm.
I'm not sure why you want the pathologist and umpteen police officers to be lying.
It's very clear:
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3943.0;attach=28989;image)
-
The lower shot was inflicted while she was sitting upwards, This caused haemorrhage to the external jugular vein. In my opinion the blood on her arm and arm pit area got their via blood squirting and help of gravity even if only for a second or two
The stripes of blood on her lower arm could have been caused by drips from her neck maybe ?
-
The lower shot was inflicted while she was sitting upwards, This caused haemorrhage to the external jugular vein. In my opinion the blood on her arm and arm pit area got their via blood squirting and help of gravity even if only for a second or two
I don't think I am explaining myself and I don't like posting the photos . But in the pictures she has heavy bloodstaining in the armpit and then a blood trail up over the top of her arm towards the back of her shoulder where as at that point the blood from both wounds seem to be flowing back round her neck .
I understand I think what you are saying about the blood under her armpit but if she was sitting up the blood should flow down ?
-
The lower shot was inflicted while she was sitting upwards, This caused haemorrhage to the external jugular vein. In my opinion the blood on her arm and arm pit area got their via blood squirting and help of gravity even if only for a second or two
Blood doesn't squirt from a vein, David.
-
Blood doesn't squirt from a vein, David.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_squirt
-
I'm not sure why you want the pathologist and umpteen police officers to be lying.
It's very clear:
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=3943.0;attach=28989;image)
I don't WANT them to but I believe they did and I have made it clear why I believe they did. You don't have to share my opinion but you like like you have the hump over it. :P
-
I don't WANT them to but I believe they did and I have made it clear why I believe they did. You don't have to share my opinion but you like like you have the hump over it. :P
I haven't got a hump. :-\
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_squirt
Blood squirts, gushes etc. from arteries but not from veins. Arteries are pumped by the heart as they carry fresh oxygenated blood round the body. Veins carry deoxygenated blood back to the heart. A vein bleeds but it depends on the size of the vein how much they bleed. The external jugular vein is quite large but may not have bled that much initially.
-
I haven't got a hump. :-\
Good! ;D ;D
-
Good! ;D ;D
But your argument is still rubbish. ;D
-
But your argument is still rubbish. ;D
Not at all
Vanezis was questioned at trial about Sheila's Hands and the blood stains. He admits it appears to be caused by blood stained fingers 8)
(http://s13.postimg.org/tce5r7j93/vanezisrivlin.jpg)
-
Not at all
Vanezis was questioned at trial about Sheila's Hands and the blood stains. He admits it appears to be caused by blood stained fingers 8)
(http://s13.postimg.org/tce5r7j93/vanezisrivlin.jpg)
I think you've just reinforced the fact that her palms and fingers were not blood stained.
-
Precisely.
-
I think you've just reinforced the fact that her palms and fingers were not blood stained.
Now read the final question at the bottom by the letter E 8)
-
Now read the final question at the bottom by the letter E 8)
When did she have the opportunity to wash her hands? I mean seriously? ???
-
When she soaked her clothes.
-
When she soaked her clothes.
Exactly, that's about the best argument that can be put together, I am truly flummoxed. :-X
-
When did she have the opportunity to wash her hands? I mean seriously? ???
Once the defendants sister had shot all the occupants in the house there is nothing to prevent her from using either the kitchen sink or the bathroom sinks. After all that is what sinks are predominately used for is it not? ;)
-
Once the defendants sister had shot all the occupants in the house there is nothing to prevent her from using either the kitchen sink or the bathroom sinks. After all that is what sinks are predominately used for is it not? ;)
So you are suggesting that the blood stains are not associated with the wounds to Sheila?
I won't agree or disagree with that, but you must then be of the opinion that when Sheilas body was found, her palms and fingers were clean and not contaminated with blood, right? Like the pathologist and police officers witness and testify?
-
but if the blood came from her wounds she would not have washed her hands then?
It depends how thorough the blood testing on her nightdress was? there was a document on here but you had to be a blood expert to understand it :
-
I haven't got the hump, as Caroline insinuates, I just find the argument to be quite hilarious.
Ah well, it would be boring if we all agreed all of the time. :P
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1292.0;attach=25361;image)
-
But your argument is still rubbish. ;D
In your opinion :P
-
In your opinion :P
That's all I have to cling on to. ;)
-
So you are suggesting that the blood stains are not associated with the wounds to Sheila?
I won't agree or disagree with that, but you must then be of the opinion that when Sheilas body was found, her palms and fingers were clean and not contaminated with blood, right? Like the pathologist and police officers witness and testify?
If we are to consider the possibilities Yes, Shelia gets blood on her hands from killing four people and as a result puts those finger stains on her night dress. Then later on washes her hands of the blood.
Rivlin QC is getting Vanezis to admit to this possibility in the trial transcript I posted
-
If we are to consider the possibilities Yes, Shelia gets blood on her hands from killing four people and as a result puts those finger stains on her night dress. Then later on washes her hands of the blood.
Rivlin QC is getting Vanezis to admit to this possibility in the trial transcript I posted
But her palms and fingers are free from blood when she is found right?
-
night dress is item 19
-
If we are to consider the possibilities Yes, Shelia gets blood on her hands from killing four people and as a result puts those finger stains on her night dress. Then later on washes her hands of the blood.
Rivlin QC is getting Vanezis to admit to this possibility in the trial transcript I posted
Or when Jeremy shot her, she put her hand to her throat.
-
night dress is item 19
That's the court exhibit, the investigation reference is ND/3.
-
That's all I have to cling on to. ;)
It's all any of us have
-
Or when Jeremy shot her, she put her hand to her throat.
How could she then wash her hands? That is utterly preposterous. ;D
-
It's all any of us have
Datz true dat iz. :)
-
How could she then wash her hands? That is utterly preposterous. ;D
I didn't say she did wash her hands? ??? ??? ???
-
That's the court exhibit, the investigation reference is ND/3.
it says nightdress on the paperwork .
-
That's the court exhibit, the investigation reference is ND/3.
and it does say exhibit number 19
-
it says nightdress on the paperwork .
Yes it is both 19 and ND/3. It's a Neil Davidson exhibit reference and a numerical court exhibit reference.
-
I didn't say she did wash her hands? ??? ??? ???
I'm not arguing with you anymore. Let's just agree to disagree. :)
-
But her palms and fingers are free from blood when she is found right?
So we are told.
Then again in Vanezis original autopsy he writes that the palm print on the night dress came from her right hand.
When you have this much contradictory claims you really cannot be certain of anything
-
I'm not arguing with you anymore. Let's just agree to disagree. :)
I do agree that I disagree with you, there is no argument about that ;) ;D ;D
-
I do agree that I disagree with you, there is no argument about that ;) ;D ;D
;D
-
I don't think it is court exhibit as this is the document sending to lab
-
I don't think it is court exhibit as this is the document sending to lab
Pretty sure it is.
-
Unless it's just a lab item reference. :-\
-
Anyway, it's the same item.
-
Unless it's just a lab item reference. :-\
yes I agree lab reference - But I don't understand the analysis or which are blood groups .
-
yes I agree lab reference - But I don't understand the analysis or which are blood groups .
KM just means it's human blood I think.
-
Kastle Meyer, test.
-
KM just means it's human blood I think.
KM test only determines blood
"Also, it is important to note that the test does not differentiate between heme molecules of different species. A separate test is required to determine whether blood is of human or animal origin."
http://chemistry.about.com/od/homeexperiments/a/Kastle-Meyer-Test-To-Detect-Blood.htm
-
KM test only determines blood
"Also, it is important to note that the test does not differentiate between heme molecules of different species. A separate test is required to determine whether blood is of human or animal origin."
http://chemistry.about.com/od/homeexperiments/a/Kastle-Meyer-Test-To-Detect-Blood.htm
Aaah okay.
-
Aaah okay.
What I find rather silly is that they KM tested the Nightdress! I mean why! what else could it be ???
-
The pattern of blood at the" rear "of the nightdress contained clots ? Was Sheila haemorrhaging ?
-
The pattern of blood at the" rear "of the nightdress contained clots ? Was Sheila haemorrhaging ?
Where did that come from, Lookout?
-
Where did that come from, Lookout?
Where indeed.
-
Where did that come from, Lookout?
It's written on the report about her nightdress and its blood pattern.
-
Where indeed.
Why the echo ? ::)
-
It's written on the report about her nightdress and its blood pattern.
I have no recall of blood clots EVER being mentioned and the only reference to menstruation was that she was in the early stages of.
-
I have no recall of blood clots EVER being mentioned and the only reference to menstruation was that she was in the early stages of.
Unless you read these reports thoroughly even if they do appear undecipherable,I'm called a liar or have made something up. ::)
I mentioned about the clots simply because they didn't tally with her menstrual cycle.Just wondering where else they'd come from,that's all.
-
Unless you read these reports thoroughly even if they do appear undecipherable,I'm called a liar or have made something up. ::)
I mentioned about the clots simply because they didn't tally with her menstrual cycle.Just wondering where else they'd come from,that's all.
OK. If you want to be pedantic, I can turn my one sentence post into two sentences, but I STILL don't recall seeing anything said about CLOTS.
-
OK. If you want to be pedantic, I can turn my one sentence post into two sentences, but I STILL don't recall seeing anything said about CLOTS.
That's because there isn't anything that states there were 'clots' on her nightdress.
-
OK. If you want to be pedantic, I can turn my one sentence post into two sentences, but I STILL don't recall seeing anything said about CLOTS.
Take a look at Hartley's post with the diagram,then tell me if you see the word clotted. Post 47 on this thread. Then you explain where,on her back,it would have come from.
-
Take a look at Hartley's post with the diagram,then tell me if you see the word clotted. Post 47 on this thread. Then you explain where,on her back,it would have come from.
It's blood from the wounds in her neck which has soaked through to the back of her night dress and started to dry.
Nothing more, and nothing less.
-
The pattern of blood at the" rear "of the nightdress contained clots ? Was Sheila haemorrhaging ?
Whilst you ARE correct that it had nothing to do with menstruation, you're wrong in saying that "the rear of the nightdress contained clots." What it said was more along the lines of "Heavy staining. Clotted in areas" which is not, in my book, evidence of haemorrhage. MIGHT it be evidence though, of the length of time she'd been dead? I'm certain, that as a former nurse, you don't need me to tell you that blood DOES clot. Those for whom it doesn't have their own problems.
-
Whilst you ARE correct that it had nothing to do with menstruation, you're wrong in saying that "the rear of the nightdress contained clots." What it said was more along the lines of "Heavy staining. Clotted in areas" which is not, in my book, evidence of haemorrhage. MIGHT it be evidence though, of the length of time she'd been dead? I'm certain, that as a former nurse, you don't need me to tell you that blood DOES clot. Those for whom it doesn't have their own problems.
Bleeding... haemorrhaging means the same thing to me......
-
Bleeding... haemorrhaging means the same thing to me......
They have entirely different meanings to me, Maggie. For instance, I wouldn't call for medical assistance just because someone was bleeding.
-
It's blood from the wounds in her neck which has soaked through to the back of her night dress and started to dry.
Nothing more, and nothing less.
"Clotted areas ?" So low down from her neck and in her back ? How did they get there ?
-
"Clotted areas ?" So low down from her neck and in her back ? How did they get there ?
"So low down"??? The largest stain covered the area between the nightdress collar and the arm pit.
-
They have entirely different meanings to me, Maggie. For instance, I wouldn't call for medical assistance just because someone was bleeding.
They mean the same thing, Sheila was haemorrhaging blood. I know I am being pedantic, sorry, ;) but they do mean the same thing :)
-
They mean the same thing, Sheila was haemorrhaging blood. I know I am being pedantic, sorry, ;) but they do mean the same thing :)
It is one and the same thing.Just another word for bleeding profusely.
-
"Clotted areas ?" So low down from her neck and in her back ? How did they get there ?
It's not. It got to where it got to by gravity.
-
It's not. It got to where it got to by gravity.
If the girl was flat on her back,as photographed,then the gravity would be sideways and not downwards unless she was standing or sitting upright.
-
They mean the same thing, Sheila was haemorrhaging blood. I know I am being pedantic, sorry, ;) but they do mean the same thing :)
Maggie, it appears that you're right.......................according to Surgery-About.com it means "bleeding of 'ANY' amount"...........................BUT, according to MedicineNet it means "bleeding or 'ABNORMAL FLOW'" and Merriam-Webster Medical describes it as a "COPIOUS discharge from blood vessels"................ya pays ya money and takes ya choice?
-
If the girl was flat on her back,as photographed,then the gravity would be sideways and not downwards unless she was standing or sitting upright.
Maybe this helps?
Blood flowed down her neck and made its way between her right arm and right hand side of her chest, it then seeped through to her back.
-
Sheila still must have been in a sitting position for blood to run down near to her waist. If she'd have remained flat for the duration,there'd have been no blood on her back at all.
-
If you tried drinking a glass of water while lying flat on your back, where would the surplus go ?
-
Sheila still must have been in a sitting position for blood to run down near to her waist. If she'd have remained flat for the duration,there'd have been no blood on her back at all.
I'd say it was extremely unlikely that there was a huge amount near her waist area. In fact, it's only described as "smears."
-
I'd say it was extremely unlikely that there was a huge amount near her waist area. In fact, it's only described as "smears."
" Clotted areas ?"
-
" Clotted areas ?"
Nope. It says nothing about being "clotted in areas" in the waist region.
-
With that in mind I'd say that Sheila had been sitting. As was June originally,so how come both were found flat,or in June's case,splayed out ?
-
With that in mind I'd say that Sheila had been sitting. As was June originally,so how come both were found flat,or in June's case,splayed out ?
How would blood from a neck wound pool in her arm pit -that's UNDER her arm- if she'd been sitting?
-
How would blood from a neck wound pool in her arm pit -that's UNDER her arm- if she'd been sitting?
With her head crooked.
-
With her head crooked.
That way,the blood flow would have been restricted.
-
That way,the blood flow would have been restricted.
New way to stop a haemorrhage, eh?
-
New way to stop a haemorrhage, eh?
It went t'other way didn't it,when she was laid flat ?
-
Maggie, it appears that you're right.......................according to Surgery-About.com it means "bleeding of 'ANY' amount"...........................BUT, according to MedicineNet it means "bleeding or 'ABNORMAL FLOW'" and Merriam-Webster Medical describes it as a "COPIOUS discharge from blood vessels"................ya pays ya money and takes ya choice?
I was taught it was the same thing back in the day and 'haemorrhage' was the correct medical term. Think it is used loosely as meaning heavy bleeding as opposed to a trickle from a finger in everyday use. ;D ;D
Tell you what though.... it's a b***h to spell.
-
I was taught it was the same thing back in the day and 'haemorrhage' was the correct medical term. Think it is used loosely as meaning heavy bleeding as opposed to a trickle from a finger in everyday use. ;D ;D
Tell you what though.... it's a b***h to spell.
Not if you do it my way, Maggie ;) It's "Ha" as in Haha, followed by "EM" short for Emma, "Or" being French for gold, and "Rhage" being super angry. VOILA!!! ^-^
-
Not if you do it my way, Maggie ;) It's "Ha" as in Haha, followed by "EM" short for Emma, "Or" being French for gold, and "Rhage" being super angry. VOILA!!! ^-^
My way is easier.
"Leaking".
LEAK - As in dripping tap, then add ING. :)
-
My way is easier.
"Leaking".
LEAK - As in dripping tap, then add ING. :)
That's sweating. ;D
-
My way is easier.
"Leaking".
LEAK - As in dripping tap, then add ING. :)
DEAR Hartley, it's not a description of you, SURELY? :o ^-^ ^-^ ^-^ ^-^
-
DEAR Hartley, it's not a description of you, SURELY? :o ^-^ ^-^ ^-^ ^-^
:))
-
Not if you do it my way, Maggie ;) It's "Ha" as in Haha, followed by "EM" short for Emma, "Or" being French for gold, and "Rhage" being super angry. VOILA!!! ^-^
Think it's easier to call it bleeding, Jane!!
-
so if she was sitting and a lot of blood went down to her armpit then it looks as if at one stage whilst the blood was wet she turned or was turned on her side because the blood appears to go over the top of her arm which is not natural for that final position . If we assume this was from the first shot then if JB did it or it was self inflicted ,and it was correct as in statements that she could have been conscious between shots then she could have put her hand up at some stage inbetween shots . Jeremy would have been at her feet aiming the gun so he could not have stopped her could he?
-
so if she was sitting and a lot of blood went down to her armpit then it looks as if at one stage whilst the blood was wet she turned or was turned on her side because the blood appears to go over the top of her arm which is not natural for that final position . If we assume this was from the first shot then if JB did it or it was self inflicted ,and it was correct as in statements that she could have been conscious between shots then she could have put her hand up at some stage inbetween shots . Jeremy would have been at her feet aiming the gun so he could not have stopped her could he?
I do think it looks as if she was put in or put herself in the recovery position. If she was turned on her side with her arm raised, her face and neck would be in exactly the right position to bleed where the blood is pooled. I am not saying she was put in or she moved herself into this position but that is how it looks. imo :-\
-
I do think it looks as if she was put in or put herself in the recovery position. If she was turned on her side with her arm raised, her face and neck would be in exactly the right position to bleed where the blood is pooled. I am not saying she was put in or she moved herself into this position but that is how it looks. imo :-\
thanks
thought I was going mad :) blood does not run upwards.
-
Adam please see reply 52 for SOURCE.
-
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1292.0;attach=25361;image)
Just for Adam :)
-
night dress is item 19
. See this blood groups item 19
-
That's the pattern of blood which was on the left side of the bed in which June had slept in. There is a recent pic showing the blood staining----I think Mike posted it yesterday.
-
That's the pattern of blood which was on the left side of the bed in which June had slept in. There is a recent pic showing the blood staining----I think Mike posted it yesterday.
There is another sheet that shows item 19 as well
-
There is another sheet that shows item 19 as well
Why wasn't the " clotted blood " explained I wonder ?
-
Why wasn't the " clotted blood " explained I wonder ?
What clotted blood?
-
What clotted blood?
Where it states/written on the diagram
-
What does km positive mean ?
-
Just googled it just means a test to confirm it is derived from blood
-
Where it states/written on the diagram
Well, this is pretty obvious, the blood from Sheila wounds trailed around her neck and under her arm making the stains on the back. Not sure what the mystery is here? Or have I missed something?
-
Well, this is pretty obvious, the blood from Sheila wounds trailed around her neck and under her arm making the stains on the back. Not sure what the mystery is here? Or have I missed something?
It doesn't show any blood trail from the neck down to the back. That " pattern " of blood-staining is also on the sheet of the bed too.
No mystery !!
-
It doesn't show any blood trail from the neck down to the back. That " pattern " of blood-staining is also on the sheet of the bed too.
No mystery !!
Eh? Sorry, have I missed something? I understand from having seen this diagram before that it is Sheila's nightdress being analysed? You can see blood trailing from Sheila's neck can't you? This made the stain around the neck on the back of her nightdress!
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4317)
And the lower stain was formed by blood under her arm trailing to the back of her nightdress, it's called gravity!
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4308)
Are you suggesting this is June's nightdress?
-
It's not the back,is it ?
-
Wonder where that line of blood comes from that leads from the rifle to the left ? Looks like an imprint of the necklace as if the collar was up at some stage?
-
Yes,it would have meant that the collar was up at some point.
-
It's not the back,is it ?
Yes! It's states that.
-
You've lost me. ???
-
If you look at the imprint it would mean the collar was up for the first shot hence the necklace imprint but down for the second shot .
-
If you look at the imprint it would mean the collar was up for the first shot hence the necklace imprint but down for the second shot .
How might it have changed positions?
-
How might it have changed positions?
Well as we know she could have been conscious between shots and she could have moved herself for the second shot or when she possibly put her hand up between shots ?
I don't think it's was moved after the second shot because of the pattern of blood .
Not saying it is relevant although it could back up her being conscious in between shots .
As I have never seen a diagram of how Jeremy is supposed to have shot her without her fighting back I can't comment on how he would have done it .
-
Well as we know she could have been conscious between shots and she could have moved herself for the second shot or when she possibly put her hand up between shots ?
I don't think it's was moved after the second shot because of the pattern of blood .
Not saying it is relevant although it could back up her being conscious in between shots .
As I have never seen a diagram of how Jeremy is supposed to have shot her without her fighting back I can't comment on how he would have done it .
Hmm. But as you said to me on another thread, you're making assumptions ;D
-
It is very offensive to Julie that Bamber has spent 32 years accusing her of trying to frame him of 5x murder. The reason - he (apparently) jilted her.
Then again his mother was shot 8 times & he tried to frame his sister. So the women in his life were just a means to an end.
Not sure why Julie told 5 people what she knew while still with Bamber. Which was before she was jilted.
-
Hmm. But as you said to me on another thread, you're making assumptions ;D
That was more or less what the case itself was based on anyway.
-
If you look at the imprint it would mean the collar was up for the first shot hence the necklace imprint but down for the second shot .
I don't think that's an imprint, just just the blood seeping down the the collar.
-
I think people are jumping to conclusions and seeing things that aren't there. Sorry :-\
-
I don't think that's an imprint, just just the blood seeping down the the collar.
No the one going horizontally in line with the chain
Zoom in and you can see the pattern of the chain .
-
No the one going horizontally in line with the chain
Zoom in and you can see the pattern of the chain .
That's just the stitching.
-
That's just the stitching.
Stitching on the collar?
-
The pattern of the chain is a couple of centimetres clear of the stitching.
-
I honestly don't know what you're referring to, can you edit the picture to show me?
-
The nightdress doesn't have a collar, it has a frill running around the neckline and the blood leading up to the rifle is blood that has trickled down the stitching.
-
I honestly don't know what you're referring to, can you edit the picture to show me?
Haven't you got a magnifier ? You can see it better being as it's the same colour.
-
You can see the frill better in this picture and the blood having run down the stitching.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=39391)
-
Haven't you got a magnifier ? You can see it better being as it's the same colour.
I don't need one - look at the picture on the above post, you can see the blood is running down the stitching and what you're calling a collar is a frill.
-
What I can see,or mean, is a line of blood with a faint herringbone pattern which looks like an impression of the necklace ( herringbone ) I don't know if this is what Jan also sees.
-
I don't need one - look at the picture on the above post, you can see the blood is running down the stitching and what you're calling a collar is a frill.
. No that's not it .
-
. No that's not it .
it won't let me save the picture but it could be either . But it is under the chain in line with the chain only up the the barrel of the gun.
It just seems to run in a different direction to the rest of the blood that's all and is sort of a mirror image of the wounds above .
-
it won't let me save the picture but it could be either . But it is under the chain in line with the chain only up the the barrel of the gun.
It just seems to run in a different direction to the rest of the blood that's all and is sort of a mirror image of the wounds above .
OK, are you talking about the line below highlighted in yellow?
-
The yellow part is what I'd meant re.the herringbone pattern impressed on it.
-
The yellow part is what I'd meant re.the herringbone pattern impressed on it.
There is no herringbone pattern ;D. It's the stitching Lookout - but have it your way ::)
-
There is no herringbone pattern ;D. It's the stitching Lookout - but have it your way ::)
Same difference I suspect,herringbone/stitching.
-
yes that's it .
Without seeing the rest of the collar in more detail its difficult to tell but I am reserving judgement .
It could have happened if her hand was put up to her throat for the first shot and she caught the collar
-
yes that's it .
Without seeing the rest of the collar in more detail its difficult to tell but I am reserving judgement .
It could have happened if her hand was put up to her throat for the first shot and she caught the collar
It's a frill not a collar. If as you say it was a collar and it got turned up and somehow the necklace stained the collar, the shape would be in reverse. The necklace makes and upturned semi circle whereas a transference onto an upturned collar would make a down-turned semi circle when the collar turned down again.
-
Hmm. But as you said to me on another thread, you're making assumptions ;D
I was asking a question not stating a fact .
And I thought it was mentioned in reports that she could have put her hand to her neck ?
That could have happened whoever the perpetrator was.