Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Caroline on March 08, 2016, 08:28:PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPgOmy0y0n0
This IS interesting, Terry Mullins is the guy who conducted the polygraph test on Jeremy. The test was done in 2007, TM has now been a polygraph tester for 11 years which means when he examined Jeremy, he had only been in the profession for 2-3 years. In order to become a polygraph examiner he studied in the US for 11-12 WEEKS!
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPgOmy0y0n0
This IS interesting, Terry Mullins is the guy who conducted the polygraph test on Jeremy. The test was done in 2007, TM has now been a polygraph tester for 11 years which means when he examined Jeremy, he had only been in the profession for 2-3 years. In order to become a polygraph examiner he studied in the US for 11-12 WEEKS!
Caroline, surely a polygraph examiner is no more than a technician?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPgOmy0y0n0
This IS interesting, Terry Mullins is the guy who conducted the polygraph test on Jeremy. The test was done in 2007, TM has now been a polygraph tester for 11 years which means when he examined Jeremy, he had only been in the profession for 2-3 years. In order to become a polygraph examiner he studied in the US for 11-12 WEEKS!
And he is still giving interviews with the campaign team, doesn't sound very independant. I guess it is a case of you get what you pay for.
-
Nearly as bad as S.Jones who was only a sergeant yet was still an" authority" on murder cases even though he hadn't had the full training as his superiors had. Funny that.
-
Nearly as bad as S.Jones who was only a sergeant yet was still an" authority" on murder cases even though he hadn't had the full training as his superiors had. Funny that.
Do you often wander around splurting random things? What's THAT got to do with THIS?
Any comment on the actual topic? :-\
-
Do you often wander around splurting random things? What's THAT got to do with THIS?
Any comment on the actual topic? :-\
I thought you were discussing the LACK of knowledge concerning the guy who did the polygraph ? Yes ?,well I threw in another lack of knowledge to go with it ! ALL to do with the case,you see.
-
I thought you were discussing the LACK of knowledge concerning the guy who did the polygraph ? Yes ?,well I threw in another lack of knowledge to go with it ! ALL to do with the case,you see.
Okay. So you agree that Mullins has a lack of knowledge?
-
Okay. So you agree that Mullins has a lack of knowledge?
I wouldn't know.I was only following the remarks that were made.
-
Nearly as bad as S.Jones who was only a sergeant yet was still an" authority" on murder cases even though he hadn't had the full training as his superiors had. Funny that.
I guess you have no idea how difficult it is to sit a sergeant's exam - study takes LOT longer than 11 weeks!!!!
-
I guess you have no idea how difficult it is to sit a sergeant's exam - study takes LOT longer than 11 weeks!!!!
You wouldn't have thought so the way the case went. He relied more on the relatives and JM.
-
You wouldn't have thought so the way the case went. He relied more on the relatives and JM.
The thread isn't about SJ, you're doing what you usually do - trying to to deflect!
-
The thread isn't about SJ, you're doing what you usually do - trying to to deflect!
Nope------I was making comparisons. I know full well what the thread's about,but seeing as you haven't got a good word to say about those who appear to be on the side of JB,I just thought I'd add a twist.Touche.
-
Nope------I was making comparisons. I know full well what the thread's about,but seeing as you haven't got a good word to say about those who appear to be on the side of JB,I just thought I'd add a twist.Touche.
Why can't you just debate the case and stop being personal. comment on the topic or make up your own!
-
Why can't you just debate the case and stop being personal. comment on the topic or make up your own!
Erm,personal ? I only answer in the manner that you yourself do,but you wouldn't know until someone speaks to you in the same tone then you start whingeing.
-
Erm,personal ? I only answer in the manner that you yourself do,but you wouldn't know until someone speaks to you in the same tone then you start whingeing.
YES! You do it every time!
-
YES! You do it every time!
That's because I've got wise to you because you don't do polite. DOASYOUWOULDBEDONEBY is my motto.
-
YES! You do it every time!
Lookout is just getting what she wants, replies/attention and changing the conversation of the topic as she does whenever any negative point is brought up against Bamber or anyone who supports him.
I tihnk the video is a bit of an own goal really. One of the strongest points the CT have used over the years ( and it isn't even THAT strong a point ) is that Jeremy passed a lie detector test. But now they have an interview with the man who tested Bamber - and it doesn't come across too well and he doesn't seem to have even been THAT knowledgable at the time.
-
That's because I've got wise to you because you don't do polite. DOASYOUWOULDBEDONEBY is my motto.
I got wise to you when I changed my opinion on Bamber and you turned along with a few others.
-
I got wise to you when I changed my opinion on Bamber and you turned along with a few others.
I'd turned long before that so don't kid yourself. Like I've always said,I tell the truth.
-
I'd turned long before that so don't kid yourself. Like I've always said,I tell the truth.
Of course you do Lookout! You keep telling us that BUT ..... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I'd turned long before that so don't kid yourself. Like I've always said,I tell the truth.
So you say but I suspect it's rather more the truth as you want it to be.
-
I wonder if Julie Mugford would volunteer for a Polygraph Test?
Now that would be interesting
-
I wonder if Julie Mugford would volunteer for a Polygraph Test?
Now that would be interesting
Why would she?
-
I wonder if Julie Mugford would volunteer for a Polygraph Test?
Now that would be interesting
Wouldn't it just ? She'd probably cry all the way through making it null and void. One way of getting out of it.
-
Lookout is just getting what she wants, replies/attention and changing the conversation of the topic as she does whenever any negative point is brought up against Bamber or anyone who supports him.
I tihnk the video is a bit of an own goal really. One of the strongest points the CT have used over the years ( and it isn't even THAT strong a point ) is that Jeremy passed a lie detector test. But now they have an interview with the man who tested Bamber - and it doesn't come across too well and he doesn't seem to have even been THAT knowledgable at the time.
Exactly Mat!
-
Oh dear,Mat wouldn't make a good psychiatrist.
Those who know me would deny that I've ever sought attention in any way. I can't even stand attention-seekers,they get on my nerves.
However,I see a lot of it on here when guilters put themselves forward in clamouring/vieing for their own attention in trying to shout down anything that happens to be in favour of JB's innocence.
-
Oh dear,Mat wouldn't make a good psychiatrist.
Those who know me would deny that I've ever sought attention in any way. I can't even stand attention-seekers,they get on my nerves.
However,I see a lot of it on here when guilters put themselves forward in clamouring/vieing for their own attention in trying to shout down anything that happens to be in favour of JB's innocence.
We are forever hearing about 'those who know you. It's not really relevant as the forum isn't about you and we all have our own impressions and opinions of how you come over. 'Those who know you' aren't on the forum and if they were, they would be discussing Bamber - not you.
As for shouting down, this thread was started to discuss the latest VLOG, however you jumped in and started banging on about Stand Jones. Look to yourself before you accuse others because you might find that you're guilty of doing the very thing that you're making a song and dance about. ::)
-
We are forever hearing about 'those who know you. It's not really relevant as the forum isn't about you and we all have our own impressions and opinions of how you come over. 'Those who know you' aren't on the forum and if they were, they would be discussing Bamber - not you.
As for shouting down, this thread was started to discuss the latest VLOG, however you jumped in and started banging on about Stand Jones. Look to yourself before you accuse others because you might find that you're guilty of doing the very thing that you're making a song and dance about. ::)
FGS,I was using SJ as a comparison of uselessness the same as you'd described TM. It was the usual tit for tat that I have to contend with,but as soon as I mention anything that goes against the grain you're immediately up in arms----------and exaggerating too because I wasn't particularly " banging on " about SJ the same as you were ripping into TM ! Don't expect EVERYONE to agree with you ALL of the time.
-
You've become quite paranoid at any mention of anything if it happens to be in JB's favour.
Chill out,there are worse things going on in the world besides this. I know,because I'm not blinkered.
-
Why would she?
If she has nothing to hide why not?
-
FGS,I was using SJ as a comparison of uselessness the same as you'd described TM. It was the usual tit for tat that I have to contend with,but as soon as I mention anything that goes against the grain you're immediately up in arms----------and exaggerating too because I wasn't particularly " banging on " about SJ the same as you were ripping into TM ! Don't expect EVERYONE to agree with you ALL of the time.
There is no comparison, as usual, you were trying to deflect. Supporters have been BANGING on about how Bamber passed a 'lie detector' test (which is actually a polygraph) dropping in words like 'expert'. Well this is your expert - you should be keen to sing his favours NOT looking for excuses or comparisons!!
You get the tit for tat (as you call it) because you take ANY criticism of Bamber or negative comment about the case - PERSONALLY. It's not about you. Try a little objectivity and JUST discuss the case. No one was 'ripping into' TM we were discussing the VLOG, it's out there for discussion! If you don't want to discuss it, that's up to you but there is NO comparison for how long it takes to study for a police sergeant's exam and it is VERY difficult to pass.
After 11 years TM will certainly know all there is to know about polygraphs NOW - perhaps he should conduct the test again?
-
You've become quite paranoid at any mention of anything if it happens to be in JB's favour.
Chill out,there are worse things going on in the world besides this. I know,because I'm not blinkered.
Errr what has happened in his favour? ???
-
If she has nothing to hide why not?
Because I imagine she wants nothing to do with Jeremy, the case or the supporters who slag her off daily. If she passed would that convince anyone here that she was telling the truth? If she failed would it mean she was lying? It's not a lie detector test so ........ ?
-
Errr what has happened in his favour? ???
Well the present legal team who are working for him aren't doing it for the good of their health are they ?
-
Well the present legal team who are working for him aren't doing it for the good of their health are they ?
Neither were the last lot but ........
-
Neither were the last lot but ........
Yes,and look what happened,it was disallowed. Did everyone fear opening that can of worms ?
-
Yes,and look what happened,it was disallowed. Did everyone fear opening that can of worms ?
No, it wasn't good enough for an appeal. So what 'positives' are you talking about? I imagine his new legal team are tearing their hair out after the grave side stunt. I am sure they would have advised against it. I can't see any positives at the moment.
-
No, it wasn't good enough for an appeal. So what 'positives' are you talking about? I imagine his new legal team are tearing their hair out after the grave side stunt. I am sure they would have advised against it. I can't see any positives at the moment.
That goes with the territory doesn't it ? Guilty versus non-positive.
-
That goes with the territory doesn't it ? Guilty versus non-positive.
Sorry Lookout, you're the one who mentioned that there were positives but you're unable to name even one! You made yet another personal dig stating that I was paranoid every time there is a positive - so what exactly am I supposed to be paranoid about? Perhaps you were simply projecting ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Sorry Lookout, you're the one who mentioned that there were positives but you're unable to name even one! You made yet another personal dig stating that I was paranoid every time there is a positive - so what exactly am I supposed to be paranoid about? Perhaps you were simply projecting ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Ooooh,a usurped word thrown in for good measure too----------" projected ".
-
Personally i found terry mullins to be very informative. They didnt call it a lie detector test and he was quite explicit in his explanation of what a polygraph does.
who are we to decide if the polygraph is a worthwhile tool. It obviously is seen as useful by those people that use it including the police. And the different authorities.
I am not keen on the way we seem to decide which experts are good enough or not . I myself am guilty of this with vanenzis as he changed his opinion over time and i was somewhat critical of him.
WE are not the people who decide which experts are credible or not and we had to accept the prosecutions experts opinion.
i cant see a problem with considering terry mullins findings. Lets wait and see what he has to say next time.
-
Personally i found terry mullins to be very informative. They didnt call it a lie detector test and he was quite explicit in his explanation of what a polygraph does.
who are we to decide if the polygraph is a worthwhile tool. It obviously is seen as useful by those people that use it including the police. And the different authorities.
I am not keen on the way we seem to decide which experts are good enough or not . I myself am guilty of this with vanenzis as he changed his opinion over time and i was somewhat critical of him.
WE are not the people who decide which experts are credible or not and we had to accept the prosecutions experts opinion.
i cant see a problem with considering terry mullins findings. Lets wait and see what he has to say next time.
We certainly are the people who decide credibility on THIS forum and are here to express an OPINION - otherwise no one would be debating anything and the forum would exist. However, as you say, you are also guilty of deciding which experts have credibility so I don't see what point you are trying to make?
-
Lie-detectors are used purely for the benefit of the police in not being adept enough in being able to tell whether a person's lying or not,otherwise they're useless machines which sadly replace common sense.
-
You've become quite paranoid at any mention of anything if it happens to be in JB's favour.
Chill out,there are worse things going on in the world besides this. I know,because I'm not blinkered.
What has happened in Bambers favour? All that has occurred recently is a grave yard Vlog anda video with the polygraph expert.
The Grave yard V log brought Bamber a lot of national negative press, exposed Trudi as someone who is willing to lie for Bamber and showed that some supporters will back him whether he is right or wrong and that guilt or innocence isn't as important to them as defending Bamber is.
The Polygraph video showed that one of the OS's biggest claims comes from a man that was relatively new in his training and is still in touch with the defence.
-
Personally i found terry mullins to be very informative. They didnt call it a lie detector test and he was quite explicit in his explanation of what a polygraph does.
who are we to decide if the polygraph is a worthwhile tool. It obviously is seen as useful by those people that use it including the police. And the different authorities.
I am not keen on the way we seem to decide which experts are good enough or not . I myself am guilty of this with vanenzis as he changed his opinion over time and i was somewhat critical of him.
WE are not the people who decide which experts are credible or not and we had to accept the prosecutions experts opinion.
i cant see a problem with considering terry mullins findings. Lets wait and see what he has to say next time.
You've been selective yourself in the past, choosing to ignore the rest of the sentence "In contact with someone inside WHF - no response" you posted the first part of the sentence as a reason you believe in Bambers innocence and gave the most convoluted explanation as to why you left out the no response part.
I don't think people/members are picking and choosing who they believe when they say I DONT BELIEVE IN THE POLYGRAPH TEST IN ANY WAY. ;D
There are plenty of people who don't believe the polygraph is foolproof, you say that the police use it but you leave out that they only use it in certain cases and that it isn't admissible in court, there are reasons for that.
It isn't just forum members that dis-credit the polygraph test, in the past when this has come up alot of research was posted about the polygraph test.
Asking Bamber, who is very likely a psychopath questions about something 30 odd years ago that he will have distanced himself from and saying that charts show him to be telling the truth means nothing,
It wouldn't have matter if he was found to be lying either, because his freedom apparently depends on it so he would claim he was stressed and supporters would believe that. It wouldn't bother me if he was found to be lying because it's a cheap stunt and would wouldn't have heard about it anyway because this was paid for by the defence/campaign team and that rings enough alarm bells as it is.
-
Lol i dont remember posting that but im sure you muet be right.
-
We certainly are the people who decide credibility on THIS forum and are here to express an OPINION - otherwise no one would be debating anything and the forum would exist. However, as you say, you are also guilty of deciding which experts have credibility so I don't see what point you are trying to make?
i think i made my point quite clearly caroline.
i found him credible, informative and i am prepared to consider his findings.
-
i think i made my point quite clearly caroline.
i found him credible, informative and i am prepared to consider his findings.
That's good for you but some other people may or may not agree and that's why the topic is here. Personally I don't agree and am entitled to say so - that's what a debate is.
-
What has happened in Bambers favour? All that has occurred recently is a grave yard Vlog anda video with the polygraph expert.
The Grave yard V log brought Bamber a lot of national negative press, exposed Trudi as someone who is willing to lie for Bamber and showed that some supporters will back him whether he is right or wrong and that guilt or innocence isn't as important to them as defending Bamber is.
The Polygraph video showed that one of the OS's biggest claims comes from a man that was relatively new in his training and is still in touch with the defence.
Can I ask you where is the proof that she lied for Jeremy? That's quite an accusation.
-
Can I ask you where is the proof that she lied for Jeremy? That's quite an accusation.
How many times has Julie Mugford been called a liar?
The FACT of how the letter was written indicates that Jeremy knew it was going to be read out over the grave. It was ill and poor judgement and if you support the CT, I can see why you would be so defensive but you can't defend the indefensible. Mat had every right to express his thoughts on what constitutes the truth especially as the letter mentions being at the grave side and wishing he was reading it himself. If the purpose of the letter was not to be read at the grave side - what was it's purpose? This is like giving someone an apple and telling them it's a banana.
-
Can I ask you where is the proof that she lied for Jeremy? That's quite an accusation.
Jeremy's own words in the letter are enough for me.
The letter reads as if it was supposed to be read to his parents at their grave. The letter WAS read at the grave of his parents. You will believe Trudi and that is fine.
-
Jeremy's own words in the letter are enough for me.
The letter reads as if it was supposed to be read to his parents at their grave. The letter WAS read at the grave of his parents. You will believe Trudi and that is fine.
You could always counter that by arguing that it was Trudi's idea in the first place for Jeremy to write a letter and she reads it at the grave. Then technically Jeremy did not "send her"
Thou that would make Trudi rather creepy (in my opinion)
-
You could always counter that by arguing that it was Trudi's idea in the first place for Jeremy to write a letter and she reads it at the grave. Then technically Jeremy did not "send her"
Thou that would make Trudi rather creepy (in my opinion)
You could, but that would mean that the letter was still meant to be read at the grave, even if it was Trudis idea and not Bambers.
She says it was a CT decision to read it there.
Must just be a coincidence Jeremy worded it perfectly to be read there and said he wishes he was there to read it himself.
For the record #JeremyBamber didn't force, persuade or even ask me to read his words at his parent's graveside..It was a campaign decision!
-
You could, but that would mean that the letter was still meant to be read at the grave, even if it was Trudis idea and not Bambers.
She says it was a CT decision to read it there.
Must just be a coincidence Jeremy worded it perfectly to be read there and said he wishes he was there to read it himself.
For the record #JeremyBamber didn't force, persuade or even ask me to read his words at his parent's graveside..It was a campaign decision!
I think it's fair to say he hinted though but? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I think it's fair to say he hinted though but? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I think it's creepy that she would do it. If she was asked, if she wasn't asked, if he hinted, if he didn't hint. I think someone who would be willing to be filmed disgracing themselves (IMO ;) ) would also be willing to lie for Bamber - simple as that really.
She even seemed proud of all the press coverage. It makes me shudder!!.....But there is a rumour that a CT member has an account here and has been posting with us, so I guess it will get back to her how negatively her and her video are viewed.
-
I think it's creepy that she would do it. If she was asked, if she wasn't asked, if he hinted, if he didn't hint. I think someone who would be willing to be filmed disgracing themselves (IMO ;) ) would also be willing to lie for Bamber - simple as that really.
She even seemed proud of all the press coverage. It makes me shudder!!.....But there is a rumour that a CT member has an account here and has been posting with us, so I guess it will get back to her how negatively her and her video are viewed.
I think the claim that it was all the CT idea was just damage limitation.
Yes, I heard that a CT member posts here - probably keeping an eye on us! :o :o
-
I think it's creepy that she would do it. If she was asked, if she wasn't asked, if he hinted, if he didn't hint. I think someone who would be willing to be filmed disgracing themselves (IMO ;) ) would also be willing to lie for Bamber - simple as that really.
She even seemed proud of all the press coverage. It makes me shudder!!.....But there is a rumour that a CT member has an account here and has been posting with us, so I guess it will get back to her how negatively her and her video are viewed.
you would have to be 100% convinced of his innocence in order to feel ok doing it. Unless your some twisted troll
-
I think I will contact Mullins and ask if he has the "results" from Bambers polygraph and if he does, if he willing to share the polygraph chart - which can then be viewed/judged and reported on by other experts in his field.
-
I think I will contact Mullins and ask if he has the "results" from Bambers polygraph and if he does, if he willing to share the polygraph chart - which can then be viewed/judged and reported on by other experts in his field.
Ive seen the results. Il see If I can find were I left a copy
-
Ive seen the results. Il see If I can find were I left a copy
Really?
-
Really?
Yeah I have attached the PDF below
I warn you mat this will BLOW YOUR MIND! ::)
-
Don't understand this, the test is supposed to have lasted 100 mins and yet he was only asked 3 relevant questions? ???
-
;D The bit at the bottom..... A sworn affidavit will be sent on return from holiday.
Bamber was only asked 3 questions? Two of them were the same question in different ways. He must have been asked more as the expert will ask him questions such as his name and DOB to get a base reading to judge his reactions to the main questions.
It's the polygraph chart readings I want to see - which will look like the reading of a heart monitor for other experts to judge, not because I think it matters if someone else says that the results show that he wasn't telling the truth but just because with something as subjective as reading lines on a piece of paper. I will ask Mullins - no harm in asking and if you do not ask you do not get. I will also ask him if he believes that the fact the crimes happened 30 years before the test can have any bearing on the results and if he believe people with mental illness that block out their crimes could pass the test even though they are being deceptive.
Don't understand this, the test is supposed to have lasted 100 mins and yet he was only asked 3 relevant questions? ???
He can't have been can he? He needed to be asked base questions, or what are they judging his reactions again.
Can you imagine if Trudis new Vog leads to this whole "lie dectector" rubbish falling apart? ;D
-
Don't understand this, the test is supposed to have lasted 100 mins and yet he was only asked 3 relevant questions? ???
Before they ask the relevant questions they ask loads of random stuff so the machine can be adapted to the particular person. blood pressure heart rate etc etc
-
;D The bit at the bottom..... A sworn affidavit will be sent on return from holiday.
Dodgy DiStefano got him a fancy holiday to Italy in return for an all clear ;D
-
Dodgy DiStefano got him a fancy holiday to Italy in return for an all clear ;D
I wouldn't drop dead of shock. ;D
THREE questions is strange. There is a lot he should have been asked, why wouldn't he be asked about Julie's claims? Did he ever tell her the things that she claimed he did. This seems another chance to take a shot at JM and again he didn't -why? :-\ Why has he never said anything about her? :-\ That bugs me and has done for a long time.
He should have been asked about JM, phonecall from his Father.
-
;D The bit at the bottom..... A sworn affidavit will be sent on return from holiday.
Bamber was only asked 3 questions? Two of them were the same question in different ways. He must have been asked more as the expert will ask him questions such as his name and DOB to get a base reading to judge his reactions to the main questions.
It's the polygraph chart readings I want to see - which will look like the reading of a heart monitor for other experts to judge, not because I think it matters if someone else says that the results show that he wasn't telling the truth but just because with something as subjective as reading lines on a piece of paper. I will ask Mullins - no harm in asking and if you do not ask you do not get. I will also ask him if he believes that the fact the crimes happened 30 years before the test can have any bearing on the results and if he believe people with mental illness that block out their crimes could pass the test even though they are being deceptive.
He can't have been can he? He needed to be asked base questions, or what are they judging his reactions again.
Can you imagine if Trudis new Vog leads to this whole "lie dectector" rubbish falling apart? ;D
Yes, he would have had to ask base questions but if it lasted for 100 minutes - what else did he ask him and how far into the test were the relevant questions asked?
This is where is states that the test lasted 100 mins http://jeremybamber.blogspot.co.uk/p/bamber-passes-lie-detector.html
-
After 100 mins, surely you would be pretty relaxed and used to being questioned?
-
Yes, he would have had to ask base questions but if it lasted for 100 minutes - what else did he ask him and how far into the test were the relevant questions asked?
This is where is states that the test lasted 100 mins http://jeremybamber.blogspot.co.uk/p/bamber-passes-lie-detector.html
Mr Mullins said: ‘You only have to fail one question and you fail the whole test.
I don't understand that comment because say that...
Question 1 : Did you shoot five members of your family with an Anshutz rifle? "No." and the results show that Bamber was using no deception.
But
If he failed question 2. How would that mean he has failed the whole test? If he was shown as using no deception on question one.
-
Mr Mullins said: ‘You only have to fail one question and you fail the whole test.
I don't understand that comment because say that...
Question 1 : Did you shoot five members of your family with an Anshutz rifle? "No." and the results show that Bamber was using no deception.
But
If he failed question 2. How would that mean he has failed the whole test? If he was shown as using no deception on question one.
Or passed 1 and 3 and failed on 2 ;D ;D ;D
I can't get my head around only 3 relevant questions if the test lasted 100 minutes? ???
-
Also, Jeremy didn't have the stress value of looking at being convicted - he already was. Surely the fear involved in doing the test is the fear of being caught, it would surely be different for someone who had already gone through the court process - there was nothing to lose and so no stress. I would be interested to know what TM has to say on this aspect.
-
Also, Jeremy didn't have the stress value of looking at being convicted - he already was. Surely the fear involved in doing the test is the fear of being caught, it would surely be different for someone who had already gone through the court process - there was nothing to lose and so no stress. I would be interested to know what TM has to say on this aspect.
You will have to ask an expert in the field. :-\
He still has the stress value of failing which would be a PR disaster for him. And if that was the result you certainly would not be putting it under any scrutiny like you are now with a pass.
-
You will have to ask an expert in the field. :-\
He still has the stress value of failing which would be a PR disaster for him. And if that was the result you certainly would not be putting it under any scrutiny like you are now with a pass.
Wouldn't I? I don't happen to believe that polygraphs have ANY validity - pass or fail.
-
Wouldn't I? I don't happen to believe that polygraphs have ANY validity - pass or fail.
Then why you take so much interest Jeremy's?
-
Then why you take so much interest Jeremy's?
Because certain people believe that he must be innocent because he passed it. Not sure why I need to explain myself to you :o?
-
Yeah I have attached the PDF below
I warn you mat this will BLOW YOUR MIND! ::)
We've all seen this. This isn't what Mat was asking for. I wonder why the graph itself has not been made public.
Even if one is to trust tests of this kind, you've then got to get over the fact that this geezer out of Grays, was employed by one of the dodgiest lawyers on the planet.
-
We've all seen this. This isn't what Mat was asking for. I wonder why the graph itself has not been made public.
Even if one is to trust tests of this kind, you've then got to get over the fact that this geezer out of Grays, was employed by one of the dodgiest lawyers on the planet.
I think it tells us how much validity is put on the results of a "lie detector" test, in that Jeremy's "pass" hasn't been announced in the press as "CONVICTED KILLER PROVED INNOCENT AFTER 30 YEARS I PRISON"
-
D'oh,I mentioned umpteen posts ago that these machines DON'T work.
A blood-pressure machine ( sphigmomenometer ) would work far better in testing stress,they're more accurate. Better still,an MRI scan of the brain.
-
D'oh,I mentioned umpteen posts ago that these machines DON'T work.
A blood-pressure machine ( sphigmomenometer ) would work far better in testing stress,they're more accurate. Better still,an MRI scan of the brain.
The polygraph measures blood pressure as part of the measurements
http://people.howstuffworks.com/lie-detector1.htm
MRI article - https://www.technologyreview.com/s/407278/imaging-deception-in-the-brain/
Particularly interesting paragraph - "the stress of being ACCUSED of a crime can also trigger stress" Having already been convicted with nothing to lose surely would lessen the stress?
"Polygraph tests rely on measures of stress, such as heart rate and blood pressure, which can shoot up when one is telling a lie. But the stress of being accused of a crime can also trigger a stress response, making it difficult for examiners to interpret the results. FMRI-based lie-detection systems seek to assess a more direct measure of deceit: the level of activity in brain areas linked with lying. Previous studies have shown that the brain appears more active when someone is telling a falsehood, especially the brain areas involved in resolving conflict and cognitive control. Scientists think that lying is more cognitively complex than telling the truth, and therefore it activates more of the brain"
-
The polygraph measures blood pressure as part of the measurements
http://people.howstuffworks.com/lie-detector1.htm
MRI article - https://www.technologyreview.com/s/407278/imaging-deception-in-the-brain/
Particularly interesting paragraph - "the stress of being ACCUSED of a crime can also trigger stress" Having already been convicted with nothing to lose surely would lessen the stress?
"Polygraph tests rely on measures of stress, such as heart rate and blood pressure, which can shoot up when one is telling a lie. But the stress of being accused of a crime can also trigger a stress response, making it difficult for examiners to interpret the results. FMRI-based lie-detection systems seek to assess a more direct measure of deceit: the level of activity in brain areas linked with lying. Previous studies have shown that the brain appears more active when someone is telling a falsehood, especially the brain areas involved in resolving conflict and cognitive control. Scientists think that lying is more cognitively complex than telling the truth, and therefore it activates more of the brain"
Elementary my dear Watson. ;D
-
Elementary my dear Watson. ;D
Did you read the articles Lookout?
-
Did you read the articles Lookout?
Yes.
-
Yes.
MRI might be a possibility but needs a lot more research - however, I agree that it sounds a LOT more promising than the polygraph.
-
Jeremy's own words in the letter are enough for me.
The letter reads as if it was supposed to be read to his parents at their grave. The letter WAS read at the grave of his parents. You will believe Trudi and that is fine.
Actually its more complicated than that. Some comments I have read point to a different angle all together.
And if you had read what I posted you will see I don't support her action. But on this occasion I am not SURE she is telling lies.
-
Actually its more complicated than that. Some comments I have read point to a different angle all together.
And if you had read what I posted you will see I don't support her action. But on this occasion I am not SURE she is telling lies.
How is it more complicated? Seems pretty straight forward to me?
-
The polygraph measures blood pressure as part of the measurements
http://people.howstuffworks.com/lie-detector1.htm
MRI article - https://www.technologyreview.com/s/407278/imaging-deception-in-the-brain/
Particularly interesting paragraph - "the stress of being ACCUSED of a crime can also trigger stress" Having already been convicted with nothing to lose surely would lessen the stress?
"Polygraph tests rely on measures of stress, such as heart rate and blood pressure, which can shoot up when one is telling a lie. But the stress of being accused of a crime can also trigger a stress response, making it difficult for examiners to interpret the results. FMRI-based lie-detection systems seek to assess a more direct measure of deceit: the level of activity in brain areas linked with lying. Previous studies have shown that the brain appears more active when someone is telling a falsehood, especially the brain areas involved in resolving conflict and cognitive control. Scientists think that lying is more cognitively complex than telling the truth, and therefore it activates more of the brain"
I would think ( the bit in red) would depend on how stressed and angry you are with trying to prove your innocence. Talking in general not specifically.
Different people react to the fight for innocence in different ways surely?
Some would be resigned to a long long fight - others might become ill and angry with the stress of bashing your head against a brick wall.
I would not think it is something you could generalise about
-
I would think ( the bit in red) would depend on how stressed and angry you are with trying to prove your innocence. Talking in general not specifically.
Different people react to the fight for innocence in different ways surely?
Some would be resigned to a long long fight - others might become ill and angry with the stress of bashing your head against a brick wall.
I would not think it is something you could generalise about
I agree jan, we are all different and all react to injustice or in fact anything, in different ways.
-
I would think ( the bit in red) would depend on how stressed and angry you are with trying to prove your innocence. Talking in general not specifically.
Different people react to the fight for innocence in different ways surely?
Some would be resigned to a long long fight - others might become ill and angry with the stress of bashing your head against a brick wall.
I would not think it is something you could generalise about
If you couldn't 'generalise' it would make this whole machine a piece of useless trash. It actually relies of people having the SAME reaction to telling lies and THAT is a generalisation.
People do act differently but measuring behaviour DEPENDS on generalised factors. You couldn't measure human behaviour if the goal posts changed every time you tried and we would know nothing about our own species.
-
If you couldn't 'generalise' it would make this whole machine a piece of useless trash. It actually relies of people having the SAME reaction to telling lies and THAT is a generalisation.
People do act differently but measuring behaviour DEPENDS on generalised factors. You couldn't measure human behaviour if the goal posts changed every time you tried and we would know nothing about our own species.
Machines do a fine job of doing what they're designed to do, ie, measuring physiological/neurological responses. However, they have no "thoughts/feelings" about the psychology behind the responses. As yet, only humans can do that.
-
Machines do a fine job of doing what they're designed to do, ie, measuring physiological/neurological responses. However, they have no "thoughts/feelings" about the psychology behind the responses. As yet, only humans can do that.
Yes and it depends on a LOT of generalised factors things we 'expect' to happen versus things we 'don't' - if there was no 'norm' there would be nothing to measure anything against.
-
Actually its more complicated than that. Some comments I have read point to a different angle all together.
And if you had read what I posted you will see I don't support her action. But on this occasion I am not SURE she is telling lies.
That's fine, I am not trying to convince you.
We've all seen this. This isn't what Mat was asking for. I wonder why the graph itself has not been made public.
Even if one is to trust tests of this kind, you've then got to get over the fact that this geezer out of Grays, was employed by one of the dodgiest lawyers on the planet.
Yeah Neil, that's what I meant. The actual graph - that could be sent to other experts.
-
I don't know why the campaign team go on about the polygraph so much because there is a much more valid and convincing report that claims to fully exonerate Jeremy. Doctor Marco Meloni and Professor Cavalli testimony that based on the crime scene photos and one Police officers description of Shelia's blood they claim the earliest she could have died is 7AM. So according to them Shelia Died when Jeremy was outside with the police. I repeat according to them
So if there is one thing remotely convincing that could exonerate Jeremy it would be this. Not the Polygraph
-
I don't know why the campaign team go on about the polygraph so much because there is a much more valid and convincing report that claims to fully exonerate Jeremy. Doctor Marco Meloni and Professor Cavalli testimony that based on the crime scene photos and one Police officers description of Shelia's blood they claim the earliest she could have died is 7AM. So according to them Shelia Died when Jeremy was outside with the police. I repeat according to them
So if there is one thing remotely convincing that could exonerate Jeremy it would be this. Not the Polygraph
Given that it was dated 05, it seems it wasn't and it didn't.
-
My uploads of Marco Meloni's medical report and Terry Mullins polygraph statement should go into the Statements Transcripts Library
-
Given that it was dated 05, it seems it wasn't and it didn't.
Its certainly more substantial than a polygraph in my opinion
-
Its certainly more substantial than a polygraph in my opinion
Are you saying you can vouch for Meloni and Cavelli's work?
-
My uploads of Marco Meloni's medical report and Terry Mullins polygraph statement should go into the Statements Transcripts Library
I don't respond to orders - if you want to ask nicely, I'll THINK ABOUT IT!
-
I don't respond to orders - if you want to ask nicely, I'll THINK ABOUT IT!
Anyone here understand Italian?
-
Anyone here understand Italian?
I can -more or less- translate the last paragraph, but wouldn't you have thought he'd have been considerate enough to translate it before he posted it? And he expects to have it put in Archives, too??
-
I don't know whether it's just me but I advise against clicking on these links. I had to use System Restore to return my laptop to normal. I wonder if they could be broadcast in another format?
-
I don't know whether it's just me but I advise against clicking on these links. I had to use System Restore to return my laptop to normal. I wonder if they could be broadcast in another format?
Any specific links, Steve, or all links?
-
Any specific links, Steve, or all links?
I think it was #60 Jane.
-
I think it was #60 Jane.
I think it's CALL FOR CAROLINE time.
-
I think it's CALL FOR CAROLINE time.
It opened find for me and I have scanned it - no problems. Not sure why it didn't work for you Steve or why you were required to do a System restore. :-\
As for #91 - I don't speak Italian - perhaps David is simply extracting the wee wee? ;)
-
I found this, it apparently explains why Jeremy is a psychopath and is able to manipulate polygraph testers in to saying all sorts of nonesense.
Caroline, please can you put it in the R Kives. :)
(http://www.firehow.com/images/stories/hieroglyphics.jpg)
-
I found this, it apparently explains why Jeremy is a psychopath and is able to manipulate polygraph testers in to saying all sorts of nonesense.
Caroline, please can you put it in the R Kives. :)
(http://www.firehow.com/images/stories/hieroglyphics.jpg)
^-^ ^-^ ^-^ ^-^ ^-^ ^-^ ^-^ ^-^ ^-^ ^-^ ^-^ ^-^ ^-^ ^-^ ^-^ ^-^ ^-^ ^-^ ^-^ ^-^ ^-^ ^-^ ^-
-
I don't respond to orders - if you want to ask nicely, I'll THINK ABOUT IT!
I was just suggesting it to the Admins. Not Caroline I demand you this instance to put it the library NOW!
;D ;D
-
Caroline I demand you this instance to put it the library NOW!
Surely you're better off just asking nicely? ;D
-
I found this, it apparently explains why Jeremy is a psychopath and is able to manipulate polygraph testers in to saying all sorts of nonesense.
Caroline, please can you put it in the R Kives. :)
(http://www.firehow.com/images/stories/hieroglyphics.jpg)
Hartley did you not read the bottom of the hyroglifics? Its sais the answer to weather Shelia or Jeremy committed the crime is prophesied on a wall in a hidden chamber inside Tutankhamun's Tomb! ;D ;D ;D ;D
On a serious note
I did post an English translation of it a while back after putting it through Google translate . However its important to use the original document don't you think?
-
I found this, it apparently explains why Jeremy is a psychopath and is able to manipulate polygraph testers in to saying all sorts of nonesense.
Caroline, please can you put it in the R Kives. :)
(http://www.firehow.com/images/stories/hieroglyphics.jpg)
;D ;D ;D ;D - have to say, that cracked me up! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hartley did you not read the bottom of the hyroglifics? Its sais the answer to weather Shelia or Jeremy committed the crime is prophesied on a wall in a hidden chamber inside Tutankhamun's Tomb! ;D ;D ;D ;D
On a serious note
I did post an English translation of it a while back after putting it through Google translate . However its important to use the original document don't you think?
Not if you can't understand it! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Hartley did you not read the bottom of the hyroglifics? Its sais the answer to weather Shelia or Jeremy committed the crime is prophesied on a wall in a hidden chamber inside Tutankhamun's Tomb! ;D ;D ;D ;D
To be fair, I haven't looked at the forecast for tomorrow, is it raining? :-\
-
Anyone here understand Italian?
Here is the English version. According to Google Translate
Dr. MARCO M FLON 1 MD MEDICAL CI IIR URC I ODON
The OIATRA IMPLAND ology intraosseous
HRANFMARK MEDICINE CENTRE
the 01.1SPECIALISTICA 00197 Roma -
Viale Parioli, 40 'Fel. 06 / 80.76.177 - Fax 80 85 411 Cell. 0336/866574
JEREMY BAMBER / PHOTO Shiela CAFFEL
It 'well known that bleeding, due to a wound provoked, depends substantially:
• The type of lesioned vessels (arteries-veins)
• By extension of the wound
• From 'heart activity upstream
• From the metabolic conditions of the' individual concerned at the time of the traumatic event
In this case, analyzing the photographs in our possession, we see three important elements:
1. modest amount of blood on the right lateral region of the neck, a situation which conflicts with the hypothesis of a blood spill started hours before. In this case, in fact, it would have to produce a 'soiling blood much more accentuated; in fact, it remembers that the offending was under police custody from about 03:00 am and that the discovery of the corpse photographed occurred at approximately 7:34 am, in any case, in fact, the photo was taken at hours 8:30 to 09:00 am.
2. leaking blood, sustained, that fact also by 'police officer around 07:34 am, describes the body that owns the photo examined by us.
3. number 4 holes apparently by the bullet, in the area of ??the neck (entry holes, holes for entry and exit, outlet holes?)
Given the modest amount of blood that can be seen from the pictures, you might assume that the arrest of cardiac likely occurred in a very short time after the traumatic event (bullet injury on the neck?)
Whereas there is an apparent drainage of fluid from the blood bullet holes (it also stated by police officer) and therefore do not have apparently completed the phenomena of coagulation that do occur in the post-mortem, it can be assumed, lacking other elements of judgment, such as:
• rigor mortis
• body temperature
• External hypostasis
that the time of death can be placed over a period of no more than 2 hours before the discovery of the body itself.
Even in the opinion of the coroner, Dr. Andrea Cavalli MD, I consulted about the case sottopostomi, evidence detectable from an examination of the photograph and testimony of the police officer, should make further investigation, that the subject of diagnosis of time of death, can not be independent from 'acquisition parameters chrono-thanatological then encountered (body temperature - hypostasis - rigor mortis), to be assessed in the light of the overall framework detrimental pathological.
Dott. Marco Meloni DOCTOR SURGEON DENTIST Via Riccardo Forster, 121 - ROME CF MLN MRC 49P02 H5OIN P: IVA00 / 1iigiegal
-
Here is the English version. According to Google Translate
Cheers but to me they seem to be to be basing a lot of their 'opinions' on the fact that one officer said that blood was leaking from Sheila's mouth. A comment that was taken literally to mean 'free flowing' - pictures show that the blood leaking from Sheila's mouth was dried and cracking by the time she was photographed and it's clear that the office used the work 'leaking' not in it's literal sense - meaning it had leaked but was no longer flowing.
-
I think it is another case of you get what you pay for. These experts are basing it off very little and from photographs, doesn't seem very precise to me and it would be doubtful that this would ever take important over the statements at the time time from people who were there.
But I think your point (David) is that trying to use this document as propaganda would be better than trying to use the lie detector as propaganda, I do somewhat agree but I think that a lot of people will hear about the lie detector and be swayed more by this than the findings of the experts.
-
I think it is another case of you get what you pay for. These experts are basing it off very little and from photographs, doesn't seem very precise to me and it would be doubtful that this would ever take important over the statements at the time time from people who were there.
But I think your point (David) is that trying to use this document as propaganda would be better than trying to use the lie detector as propaganda, I do somewhat agree but I think that a lot of people will hear about the lie detector and be swayed more by this than the findings of the experts.
Yes that is why I brought it up.
-
Yes that is why I brought it up.
Maybe Trudi doesn't speak Italian ;D
-
Cheers but to me they seem to be to be basing a lot of their 'opinions' on the fact that one officer said that blood was leaking from Sheila's mouth. A comment that was taken literally to mean 'free flowing' - pictures show that the blood leaking from Sheila's mouth was dried and cracking by the time she was photographed and it's clear that the office used the work 'leaking' not in it's literal sense - meaning it had leaked but was no longer flowing.
You will need to ask someone trained in the medical field. It would be interesting to hear what Vanezis opinion would be on this. However I don't think he will suddenly go "Oh My God Jeremy is Innocent" ::)
-
You will need to ask someone trained in the medical field. It would be interesting to hear what Vanezis opinion would be on this. However I don't think he will suddenly go "Oh My God Jeremy is Innocent" ::)
Why? We can all clearly see that blood is not 'free flowing', it is dry and cracked.
I'm happy to step back and bow to expert opinion on certain issues, but this isn't one of them.
In the same way, I don't need an expert to tell me if it is raining, I have the ability and knowledge (expertise perhaps) to look out of the window or stand in the garden and conclude wHether it is actually raining or not.
-
Why? We can all clearly see that blood is not 'free flowing', it is dry and cracked.
I'm happy to step back and bow to expert opinion on certain issues, but this isn't one of them.
In the same way, I don't need an expert to tell me if it is raining, I have the ability and knowledge (expertise perhaps) to look out of the window or stand in the garden and conclude wHether it is actually raining or not.
It's another thing that has been taken literally and you can understand why the officer would have explained what he saw in those terms - she did have blood coming out of her mouth but it was not free flowing. The same way that Sheila and June were found either side of the bed - just not ON the bed. You can see how things might get taken literally but you would think once the officer explained what he ACTUALLY meant - people would understand what was really intended and in this instance, we have the pictures to back up the comment.
-
Terry Mullins is peddling nothing more than a gimmick. The polygraph in its present form cannot detect the difference between lies and the truth. The contraption detects minute psysiological changes in the body as a response to being asked questions and since every single person reacts in different ways no reliable conclusion can ever be reached thus why the device is not admissable in criminal cases. If the same person were asked the same questions over the course of several days, different responses would result.
The polygraph has its uses however but not as a lie detector. You could say it is more of a conscience detector. In the Kate Prout murder case, husband Adrian was the main suspect. His then girlfriend believed him to be innocent and ran a campaign to have him freed. She was so sure that he was innocent she persuaded Prout to take the polygraph test which he failed. A short time thereafter he confessed that he had in fact strangled his wife and buried her remains on their farm. The polygraph is used as a scare tactic, nothing more and nothing less.
Jeremy Bamber passing a polygraph test means only one thing and that is that Jeremy Bamber passed a polygraph test. It has no relevance to guilt or innocence. Terry Mullins will continue to peddle his polygraph at £1000 a go but at the end of the day it is a meaningless exercise. The polygraph is a fake science, it has no place in a any criminal justice system.
-
Why? We can all clearly see that blood is not 'free flowing', it is dry and cracked.
I'm happy to step back and bow to expert opinion on certain issues, but this isn't one of them.
In the same way, I don't need an expert to tell me if it is raining, I have the ability and knowledge (expertise perhaps) to look out of the window or stand in the garden and conclude wHether it is actually raining or not.
The description from DS Jones is "blood running"
I cant tell if this blood is wet or not :-\
(http://users.skynet.be/dosscrim/jeremybamber/Sheila_Caffell_injuries.jpg)
The biggest problem for me with the wet blood idea is because its a neck wound the blood coagulation process can be slowed by the submandibular glands and salivary glands in the neck/mouth hence It can make the blood appear more wet than it should be if say it was a wound somewhere else.
-
Now try an unenhanced version. She does have blood running from her mouth, but it's dried and therefore old. You're taking it literally as though it were 'flowing'. How would you have described what you saw - without the power of hindsight? I'd have used the same terms.
-
Now try an unenhanced version. She does have blood running from her mouth, but it's dried and therefore old. You're taking it literally as though it were 'flowing'. How would you have described what you saw - without the power of hindsight? I'd have used the same terms.
This photo you have is not an "unenhanced version" it is a photograph of a photograph that mike has taken at an angle with the flash on thus everything is distorted.
Look here for example the top one is scanned directly from the crime scene photo. while the bottom one is mike taking a photo of that same photo above. The difference is remarkable. The flash on mikes camera has caused major contrast it looks like a photo taken at night almost :-\
(http://s24.postimg.org/eioxna3hx/comparison.jpg)
I wish somehow we could get all the actual Essex police photos scanned. That would be a goldmine of information
-
This photo you have is not an "unenhanced version" it is a photograph of a photograph that mike has taken at an angle with the flash on thus everything is distorted.
Look here for example the top one is scanned directly from the crime scene photo. while the bottom one is mike taking a photo of that same photo above. The difference is remarkable. The flash on mikes camera has caused major contrast it looks like a photo taken at night almost :-\
(http://s24.postimg.org/eioxna3hx/comparison.jpg)
I wish somehow we could get all the actual Essex police photos scanned. That would be a goldmine of information
That's not what I meant - you can see that the blood is dry and cracking on both Sheila's face and neck.
-
That's not what I meant - you can see that the blood is dry and cracking on both Sheila's face and neck.
Like I have already explained that photo is distorted due the way the mike has taken them. The actual crime scene photos are allot brighter and clearer.
-
Like I have already explained that photo is distorted due the way the mike has taken them. The actual crime scene photos are allot brighter and clearer.
"Blood running from.........", "Blood was running from.........", "Blood had been running from........" All can be used to say -and mean- the same thing. But in reality, they don't. Two statements are present tense. One is past tense. The poor application of English grammar has led to much confusion.
-
"Blood running from.........", "Blood was running from.........", "Blood had been running from........" All can be used to say -and mean- the same thing. But in reality, they don't. Two statements are present tense. One is past tense. The poor application of English grammar has led to much confusion.
David is just doing his trolling thing again. ::)
I'm waiting for him to say Sheila was on the bed next, because one officer describes her as being on the far side of the bed. ::)
-
The description from DS Jones is "blood running"
I cant tell if this blood is wet or not :-\
(http://users.skynet.be/dosscrim/jeremybamber/Sheila_Caffell_injuries.jpg)
The biggest problem for me with the wet blood idea is because its a neck wound the blood coagulation process can be slowed by the submandibular glands and salivary glands in the neck/mouth hence It can make the blood appear more wet than it should be if say it was a wound somewhere else.
;) ;D
-
;) ;D
It's AMAZING what the old submandibulars and salivarys can do, isn't it? ^-^ ^-^ ^-^
-
Camera light doesn't bounce off dried/matt blood,or any other matt surface. So why is there a sheen coming from areas of so-called cracked blood ?
-
Like I have already explained that photo is distorted due the way the mike has taken them. The actual crime scene photos are allot brighter and clearer.
So because of the way Mike has taken them, it only LOOKS like the blood is cracking? For gods sake David - give it up! The blood was dried, black and cracking when the pictures were taken, the one you posted was NOT a good representation of the facts and is also a pisture of a picture, which is WHY it has been cut down to ONLY show the bright red ENHANCED blood on Sheila's neck, it has been cut so you can't see the cracked blood around her mouth. ::)
-
Camera light doesn't bounce off dried/matt blood,or any other matt surface. So why is there a sheen coming from areas of so-called cracked blood ?
The pictures here, are ALL photographs of photographs so the the sheen is coming from the shinny surface of the original picture. Are you trying to say that the blood isn't dried and cracking?
-
The biggest problem for me with the wet blood idea is because its a neck wound the blood coagulation process can be slowed by the submandibular glands and salivary glands in the neck/mouth hence It can make the blood appear more wet than it should be if say it was a wound somewhere else.
Just noticed this ..... where are you getting this from? ::)
-
This photo you have is not an "unenhanced version" it is a photograph of a photograph that mike has taken at an angle with the flash on thus everything is distorted.
Look here for example the top one is scanned directly from the crime scene photo. while the bottom one is mike taking a photo of that same photo above. The difference is remarkable. The flash on mikes camera has caused major contrast it looks like a photo taken at night almost :-\
(http://s24.postimg.org/eioxna3hx/comparison.jpg)
I wish somehow we could get all the actual Essex police photos scanned. That would be a goldmine of information
The top picture is an even WORSE example as it has been taken from the TV ::)
-
The pictures here, are ALL photographs of photographs so the the sheen is coming from the shinny surface of the original picture. Are you trying to say that the blood isn't dried and cracking?
I'm not happy about that line of blood cracking as it would only happen if there had been movement of sorts--------which looks as though it had only occurred after the first injury.
Other than that,the blood flow hadn't been sufficient/profuse enough to have continued as in the second shot. Even so,Sheila hadn't lain there for that many hours as the blood coming from her neck would have been black whereas it's still showing it as oxygenated/fresh.
-
David is just doing his trolling thing again. ::)
I'm waiting for him to say Sheila was on the bed next, because one officer describes her as being on the far side of the bed. ::)
That idea comes from the police telling AE that Shelia was found on the bed, It's clearly a mistake.
As for Mike claiming he saw a photo of Shelia on the bed, he didn't he imagined it ;)
-
It goes to show how Chinese Whispers end up !!
-
The top picture is an even WORSE example as it has been taken from the TV ::)
No it is not, It's a screenshot. As you can see the above photo is consistent with the photo being taken on a summer morning, while mikes photo of photo looks like it was taken in the middle of night.
-
I'm not happy about that line of blood cracking as it would only happen if there had been movement of sorts--------which looks as though it had only occurred after the first injury.
Other than that,the blood flow hadn't been sufficient/profuse enough to have continued as in the second shot. Even so,Sheila hadn't lain there for that many hours as the blood coming from her neck would have been black whereas it's still showing it as oxygenated/fresh.
Nonsense! When blood dries it shrinks causing it to crack - nothing to do with movement! She CLEARLY hadn't moved after the blood ran from her mouth - possibly because she couldn't. However, it DOSE look as though someone lifted her head, because there is a blood trail from the left side of her mouth to her left eye. Jeremy likely did this when he shot her for the second time. The dried cracked blood shows that she had been dead for some time and that the red coloured picture is a complete red herring.
-
No it is not, It's a screenshot. As you can see the above photo is consistent with the photo being taken on a summer morning, while mikes photo of photo looks like it was taken in the middle of night.
It's a screen shot taken from a sky TV programme!! It is NOT a direct scan of the original.
-
Just noticed this ..... where are you getting this from? ::)
Il give you a clue. Someone who never EVER gets anything wrong! ;D
-
Il give you a clue. Someone who never EVER gets anything wrong! ;D
Well, he did this time. I can find NOTHING to support that claim - but if you can, goon on you! The blood isn't running and I thin the ORIGINAL pictures would support this. The bright photo and the shine from the picture when it was photographed just gives the impression that the blood is wet. You can see the blood from her mouth is dried and cracked - which is why, whoever took the bright red picture omitted it.
-
There is only one logical explanation in respect to the dried cracked blood from Sheila's mouth - she had been dead from the point when this blood initially flowed. Had she been alive at any point after - she would have had to cough the residue which would have caused spluttering and there would have been expirated blood spatter on her face, on her nightdress and on objects around her. Other than the blood that poured from her mouth, there are no spits or spots. The blood is dried and cracked so she had been dead for some time - this being the case, her heart had stopped so, given that she is on her back, how can blood be pumping from a wound in her neck? The suggestion is rubbish ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
It's AMAZING what the old submandibulars and salivarys can do, isn't it? ^-^ ^-^ ^-^
Other bodily fluids from the neck/mouth mixing with blood is not something I would describe as "AMAZING"
But what ever floats your boat Jane ;) ;D ;D ;D
-
Other bodily fluids from the neck/mouth mixing with blood is not something I would describe as "AMAZING"
But what ever floats your boat Jane ;) ;D ;D ;D
Really? I'd have described as being AMAZING, even MIRACULOUS, the entire workings of the human body. It most certainly floats my boat, David ;D
-
Those who think that Sheila couldn't have been dead long because blood was running from her neck would have to explain how she was still breathing with blood in her mouth and throat? With no sign of any expirated blood on her face and the surrounding area? While the long since dried cracked blood which had ran from her mouth - shows she had been dead for some time.
It's not possible to breath with a throat full of coagulated blood - if you're not breathing, your heart isn't pumping which makes it impossible for blood to flow from a wound on top of the body, it defies gravity!
-
According to the 2005 Sky documentary this is an Essex Police photo.
Why the blood appears wet is anyone's guess. However if it was at all conclusive Jeremy would be released by now. But he is not thus the photo is inconclusive
-
Nonsense! When blood dries it shrinks causing it to crack - nothing to do with movement! She CLEARLY hadn't moved after the blood ran from her mouth - possibly because she couldn't. However, it DOSE look as though someone lifted her head, because there is a blood trail from the left side of her mouth to her left eye. Jeremy likely did this when he shot her for the second time. The dried cracked blood shows that she had been dead for some time and that the red coloured picture is a complete red herring.
What is there to say that Sheila didn't move her own head to the left ? We don't know do we ? Nobody had to move her head did they ? What would have been the purpose ?
It could have been an involuntary movement after the impact of the shot for all we know with the next following close after.
-
What is there to say that Sheila didn't move her own head to the left ? We don't know do we ? Nobody had to move her head did they ? What would have been the purpose ?
It could have been an involuntary movement after the impact of the shot for all we know with the next following close after.
She would have to TIP her head backwards from an elevated position for th blood to be able to run into her eye or 'someone' would have had to lift it. Turning her head to the side wouldn't allow blood to run UP to her eye - it defies the laws of gravity AGAIN. The impact of a .22 wouldn't be enough to lift someone's head from the floor and push it back to make such a trail.
-
According to the 2005 Sky documentary this is an Essex Police photo.
Why the blood appears wet is anyone's guess. However if it was at all conclusive Jeremy would be released by now. But he is not thus the photo is inconclusive
Regardless, the above picture is still part of the series which produced THIS picture (below) - there was only one set taken (no matter what others might have you believe!). The blood is dry and cracked, she had been dead for some time and dead people don't bleed.
I believed all the horse sh1t about the blood flowing until Bridget (an previous and brilliant poster) showed me this picture. The cracked dried blood proves that she was dead and had been for some time. Perhaps the TV enhanced the colour for dramatic purposes but this picture kicks the 'blood still flowing from the wound' theory out of the window. It's a horrible picture, but one which tells quite a story. You can also see that her face is starting to change colour below her eye, which is slightly open.
-
Regardless, the above picture is still part of the series which produced THIS picture (below) - there was only one set taken (no matter what others might have you believe!). The blood is dry and cracked, she had been dead for some time and dead people don't bleed.
I believed all the horse sh1t about the blood flowing until Bridget (an previous and brilliant poster) showed me this picture. The cracked dried blood proves that she was dead and had been for some time. Perhaps the TV enhanced the colour for dramatic purposes but this picture kicks the 'blood still flowing from the wound' theory out of the window. It's a horrible picture, but one which tells quite a story. You can also see that her face is starting to change colour below her eye, which is slightly open.
Not only is the blood, which has, at some point, run down her face, dried and cracked, the blood in her mouth appears to have begun to clot.
-
Not only is the blood, which has, at some point, run down her face, dried and cracked, the blood in her mouth appears to have begun to clot.
Exactly - the blood on Sheila's mouth (which everyone can CLEARLY see is dried and cracked) contradicts any notion of blood flowing from the wounds in her neck. She hasn't pasted a breath since that blood flowed from her mouth and her heart hadn't pumped any blood since her last breath. If she had tried to breath after or during the flow of blood from her mouth, she would have coughed or spluttered and expirated blood would be visible.
-
According to the 2005 Sky documentary this is an Essex Police photo.
Why the blood appears wet is anyone's guess. However if it was at all conclusive Jeremy would be released by now. But he is not thus the photo is inconclusive
They are all Essex police photographs, however this particular image in its current form originated whilst GDS was representing JB.
The colour of the image has been altered to increase the warmth, i.e. the reds are more pronounced. The blood appear a more vivid red; Sheilas skin is 'pinker' than it should be; the rifle is more saturated and is 'blacker' than it should be.
The blood appears wet in that image because it has been altered digitally so that it appears that way. It is actually exactly the same photograph as the cracked blood image. Bridget and I cropped the images and placed then side by side, I will see if I can retrieve that post.
-
They are all Essex police photographs, however this particular image in its current form originated whilst GDS was representing JB.
The colour of the image has been altered to increase the warmth, i.e. the reds are more pronounced. The blood appear a more vivid red; Sheilas skin is 'pinker' than it should be; the rifle is more saturated and is 'blacker' than it should be.
The blood appears wet in that image because it has been altered digitally so that it appears that way. It is actually exactly the same photograph as the cracked blood image. Bridget and I cropped the images and placed then side by side, I will see if I can retrieve that post.
See below:
Yes that's it.
Oh no, your memory isn't in as good a nick as we thought. ;) Do you not recall your conversations with Bridget and I on this very subject? Where we (or rather Bridget) posted a side by side image showing you where it was from?
Trying to keep the number of images repeated to a minimum, but........
This photograph doesn't show wet blood right? : http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4315;image
It's being claimed that this photograph does show wet blood right? : http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=18724;image
But in actual fact, they are the same image, the latter having been enhanced for publication in a newspaper :
(http://i.imgur.com/q8BSH.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/B7C5f.jpg)
-
As a further example, this is the darker image which everybody agrees showed dry cracked blood, but I have edited in photoshop to 'appear redder'.
As you can see, people might now say it shows wet blood?
-
They are all Essex police photographs, however this particular image in its current form originated whilst GDS was representing JB.
The colour of the image has been altered to increase the warmth, i.e. the reds are more pronounced. The blood appear a more vivid red; Sheilas skin is 'pinker' than it should be; the rifle is more saturated and is 'blacker' than it should be.
The blood appears wet in that image because it has been altered digitally so that it appears that way. It is actually exactly the same photograph as the cracked blood image. Bridget and I cropped the images and placed then side by side, I will see if I can retrieve that post.
Putting the issue of wet blood to the side for a second. None of the photos have been altered The problem is the Photos that Mike has taken are photos of photos taken with the flash on in a lit room and it has distorted everything. These photos were taken on a summers morning so everything will be bright as is shown on the left however with everything on the right its heavily distorted. For example the carpet by Sheila appears dark grey and the carpet by June appears pink when in actual fact the carpet is a cream colour as shown correctly on the left in all cases.
(http://s17.postimg.org/r9lxahn0f/comparison.jpg)
-
So therefore, neither show in their true " colours " ?
One set for the guilts and one set for the innocents. ;D ;D Take your pick.
-
Putting the issue of wet blood to the side for a second. None of the photos have been altered The problem is the Photos that Mike has taken are photos of photos taken with the flash on in a lit room and it has distorted everything. These photos were taken on a summers morning so everything will be bright as is shown on the left however with everything on the right its heavily distorted. For example the carpet by Sheila appears dark grey and the carpet by June appears pink when in actual fact the carpet is a cream colour as shown correctly on the left in all cases.
You are mistaken, the image claiming to show wet blood has been digitally manipulated.
Granted the other photographs are not taken directly from the negatives, however both of the photographs which are shown in the comparison in my previous posts, ARE the same image, you can quite clearly see cracked dry blood on one of them.
-
You are mistaken, the image claiming to show wet blood has been digitally manipulated.
Granted the other photographs are not taken directly from the negatives, however both of the photographs which are shown in the comparison in my previous posts, ARE the same image, you can quite clearly see cracked dry blood on one of them.
Thans H - it's like talking to a wall sometimes! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
So therefore, neither show in their true " colours " ?
One set for the guilts and one set for the innocents. ;D ;D Take your pick.
Yes, the innocents can claim Sheila was still alive shortly before begin photographed - they can ignore the dried cracked blood on her face and the dark clotted blood in her mouth. They they ignore the fact that she had clearly been dead for quite some time and no need to explain how fresh blood couldn't flow from a wound on a body who's heart had stopped hours before. You can ignore all of the while the rest of us just shake our head with the incredulity!
-
So therefore, neither show in their true " colours " ?
One set for the guilts and one set for the innocents. ;D ;D Take your pick.
No that's not how it is at all. there aren't two sets. There is one set - which has been edited and manipulated. Believing in the photos, when you know they have been edited, manipulated and in essence had their credibility played around with doesn't make you a SUPPORTER and it doesn't make you someone who believes there is a genuine case for innocence - it makes you someone willing to BELIEVE and spread ANYTHING even though you know it isn't the truth aslong as you think it makes a good case to back up your own selected beliefs.
-
You are mistaken, the image claiming to show wet blood has been digitally manipulated.
Granted the other photographs are not taken directly from the negatives, however both of the photographs which are shown in the comparison in my previous posts, ARE the same image, you can quite clearly see cracked dry blood on one of them.
The image has been cropped and digitally altered so that devious people can suggest this:
(Despite the FACT the image is shown above, uncropped and with dry cracked blood.)
(http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l8c2a2zD1k1qcii90o1_500.jpg)
There isn't even an argument or a grey area, it is outright lies and deception. There is no defending THAT!
-
There isn't even an argument or a grey area, it is outright lies and deception. There is no defending THAT!
Agreed, Harters.
-
Agreed, Harters.
If there was a genuine miscarriage of justice, then why are there these attempts to manipulate people in to believing lies?
These ARE lies, they are not accidents or misinterpretation, these are fraudulent attempts to hoodwink people.
-
So isn't it fraudulent to show digitally enhanced pics in a court of law ? I knew the law was an ass but that's taking it a bit far.
-
What else was enhanced, besides the duplicated/triplicated documents ? I reckon Mr Rivlin was too much of a gentleman to have been a judge-----------it takes a " specialised " person,like a bully !!
-
Those who think that Sheila couldn't have been dead long because blood was running from her neck would have to explain how she was still breathing with blood in her mouth and throat? With no sign of any expirated blood on her face and the surrounding area? While the long since dried cracked blood which had ran from her mouth - shows she had been dead for some time.
It's not possible to breath with a throat full of coagulated blood - if you're not breathing, your heart isn't pumping which makes it impossible for blood to flow from a wound on top of the body, it defies gravity!
I agree Caroline.
Sorry, going off topic slightly, I remember Sami making a post about Einstein though he didn't appear to be referring to the theory of relativity? Not sure what he meant but I thought his post was chilling.. Or should that be telling?
einstein invented the most evil weapon known to mankind.in my opinion if you didnt dish out abuse you would not be getting any in return
-
What else was enhanced, besides the duplicated/triplicated documents ? I reckon Mr Rivlin was too much of a gentleman to have been a judge-----------it takes a " specialised " person,like a bully !!
What a pity Judge Rivlin hadn't been of the same persona as Judge Arlidge was.
-
Did we ever get to the bottom of the triangular bloodstains on her nightie around the armpit area?
-
I agree Caroline.
Sorry, going off topic slightly, I remember Sami making a post about Einstein though he didn't appear to be referring to the theory of relativity? Not sure what he meant but I thought his post was chilling.. Or should that be telling?
The Relativity theory showed that mass could be converted to energy and from that came the atomic bomb...................................I'm still trying to work out what it has to do with Jeremy Bamber !!!!!
PS. The exclamation marks are permissible because there's a "what" in the sentence ;D
-
So isn't it fraudulent to show digitally enhanced pics in a court of law ? I knew the law was an ass but that's taking it a bit far.
Who showed digitally enhanced pictures in court?
-
The image has been cropped and digitally altered so that devious people can suggest this:
(Despite the FACT the image is shown above, uncropped and with dry cracked blood.)
(http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l8c2a2zD1k1qcii90o1_500.jpg)
There isn't even an argument or a grey area, it is outright lies and deception. There is no defending THAT!
No one looking at the FULL picture can suggest that blood was still pouring from the wounds during these pictures without looking lie a compete moron - which is why it was cropped. They haven't even got the time of the photographs right.
-
Who showed digitally enhanced pictures in court?
Yes,you're right. They wouldn't have done would they ? They'd have ruined the ambience of everyone being smug during the straightforward guilty verdict.
However,it still begs the question as to why they were " enhanced " ?
-
I agree Caroline.
Sorry, going off topic slightly, I remember Sami making a post about Einstein though he didn't appear to be referring to the theory of relativity? Not sure what he meant but I thought his post was chilling.. Or should that be telling?
I think Sami must have been referring to this http://www.doug-long.com/einstein.htm
-
Yes,you're right. They wouldn't have done would they ? They'd have ruined the ambience of everyone being smug during the straightforward guilty verdict.
However,it still begs the question as to why they were " enhanced " ?
To make people believe that Sheila had just died so Jeremy couldn't have killed her. What's not to understand? It wasn't EP that enhanced the pictures Lookout - it was those involved in supporting Jeremy.
-
Did we ever get to the bottom of the triangular bloodstains on her nightie around the armpit area?
Sheila's arm may have been crooked at the time ( bent upwards with her hand at her neck ) therefore blood would have gathered in a " well " near her armpit.
-
I think Sami must have been referring to this http://www.doug-long.com/einstein.htm
Think he was referring to this? "Never give up on what you really want to do. The person with big dreams is more powerful than one with all the facts." - Albert Einstein http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7245.msg342596.html#msg342596
-
Sheila's arm may have been crooked at the time ( bent upwards with her hand at her neck ) therefore blood would have gathered in a " well " near her armpit.
Yes but could we speculate as to the sequence of events whereby this was effectuated?
-
To make people believe that Sheila had just died so Jeremy couldn't have killed her. What's not to understand? It wasn't EP that enhanced the pictures Lookout - it was those involved in supporting Jeremy.
I still can't understand falsified evidence being used whoever was responsible and I'm surprised why nobody has said anything.
-
I still can't understand falsified evidence being used whoever was responsible and I'm surprised why nobody has said anything.
It isn't evidence Lookout, it hasn't been used in court and we have been saying something - I have posted the picture of the dried blood many times and Bridget posted it before me. Harters has mentioned the enhanced picture and so have others. But I am glad you agree that it isn't right to do these things and hopefully as far as this forum is concerned, we can put the notion of a 'still bleeding Sheila' out to pasture.
-
It isn't evidence Lookout, it hasn't been used in court and we have been saying something - I have posted the picture of the dried blood many times and Bridget posted it before me. Harters has mentioned the enhanced picture and so have others. But I am glad you agree that it isn't right to do these things and hopefully as far as this forum is concerned, we can put the notion of a 'still bleeding Sheila' out to pasture.
Caroline, I think that's trumped everything that Adam insists he's bought closure to.
-
It isn't evidence Lookout, it hasn't been used in court and we have been saying something - I have posted the picture of the dried blood many times and Bridget posted it before me. Harters has mentioned the enhanced picture and so have others. But I am glad you agree that it isn't right to do these things and hopefully as far as this forum is concerned, we can put the notion of a 'still bleeding Sheila' out to pasture.
There will always be people that promote it because to those new to the case, the photo that Hartley posted is quite convincing. The call sheet that the OS use as propaganda sounds convincing to someone new that doesn't know anything about the case. I think that the intention is to hook new people to the case with these wild lies and then to hope a handful of those people will be hooked so much they over-look things and join the cause fully.
-
There will always be people that promote it because to those new to the case, the photo that Hartley posted is quite convincing. The call sheet that the OS use as propaganda sounds convincing to someone new that doesn't know anything about the case. I think that the intention is to hook new people to the case with these wild lies and then to hope a handful of those people will be hooked so much they over-look things and join the cause fully.
No doubt about it but we will just have to keep putting them right - maybe we should sticky this thread to the board so we can just refer to it?
-
There will always be people that promote it because to those new to the case, the photo that Hartley posted is quite convincing. The call sheet that the OS use as propaganda sounds convincing to someone new that doesn't know anything about the case. I think that the intention is to hook new people to the case with these wild lies and then to hope a handful of those people will be hooked so much they over-look things and join the cause fully.
I couldn't agree more, Mat. It's occurred to me that the same old, same old is being trundled out again just as it was when I first joined and believed all the BS. I guess it's doing the rounds again because new people have joined and they too, will be wide eyed with wonder at what they believe they're learning.
-
You are mistaken, the image claiming to show wet blood has been digitally manipulated.
Granted the other photographs are not taken directly from the negatives, however both of the photographs which are shown in the comparison in my previous posts, ARE the same image, you can quite clearly see cracked dry blood on one of them.
They are NOT the same image. Just because you have two photos of the same thing does not mean they are identical copies. If you look at both pictures in detail and compare you can see there is a remarkable difference.
(http://s11.postimg.org/s8zgklrpf/comparison.jpg)
If those on left came from the image of the right then GDS done a bloody good job (no pun intended)
This would not be a case of simply enhancing or saturating the colours he would literally have to reconstruct the photo, Now considering Dodgy Distefanos reputation it would not surprise me if he did but where is the proof Distefano produced this forgery?
-
They are NOT the same image. Just because you have two photos of the same thing does need mean they are identical copies. If you look at both pictures in detail and compare you can see there is a remarkable difference.
(http://s11.postimg.org/s8zgklrpf/comparison.jpg)
If those on left came from the image of the right then GDS done a bloody good job (no pun intended)
This would not be a case of simply enhancing or saturating the colours he would literally have to reconstruct the photo, Now considering Dodgy Distefanos reputation it would not surprise me if he did but where is the proof Distefano produced this forgery?
Optical illusion created by colour change?
-
Shouldn't there have been red paint on the rifle's barrel which lay on Sheila's body ? Afterall,wasn't it established that the red paint was found on the barrel as opposed to the " phantom " silencer ?
-
Optical illusion created by colour change?
No. Distefano would literally have to reconstruct the image and would have needed assistance in doing so. I am open to this possibility but his shady reputation alone is not adequate proof and I think you can agree with me on that
-
No. Distefano would literally have to reconstruct the image and would have needed assistance in doing so. I am open to this possibility but his shady reputation alone is not adequate proof and I think you can agree with me on that
But it's a given that changing the colour in a picture will also create changes in shape and size in the same image. No "reconstruction" is necessary.
-
But it's a given that changing the colour in a picture will also create changes in shape and size in the same image. No "reconstruction" is necessary.
that simply is not true. I spent several years in IT and graphic design. Trust me
-
surely even destepno would know that you know that you cant just intrduce fake photographs as evedence i dont think he would of risked it.
-
surely even destepno would know that you know that you cant just intrduce fake photographs as evedence i dont think he would of risked it.
If he can make himself a fake lawyer what is to stop him making fake photos?
-
If he can make himself a fake lawyer what is to stop him making fake photos?
Are you denying that the dried cracked blood is part of the same image as the one you posted?
-
If he can make himself a fake lawyer what is to stop him making fake photos?
well it perverting the course of justice and he would be very lickely to get cought.
admititadly he has got a lot of front but surely even he wouldent think he could get away with that.
-
Are you denying that the dried cracked blood is part of the same image as the one you posted?
What do you think? are these both from the same photograph? :-\
(http://s30.postimg.org/fzmgbv9v5/compare3.jpg)
-
What do you think? are these both from the same photograph? :-\
(http://s30.postimg.org/fzmgbv9v5/compare3.jpg)
Are you denying that the dried cracked blood is part of the same image as the one you posted?
-
Are you denying that the dried cracked blood is part of the same image as the one you posted?
Yes its either a different photo or Distefano has edited it what else do you think I am trying to say?
-
Yes its either a different photo or Distefano has edited it what else do you think I am trying to say?
It's the same photo - they only took ONE set. I have no idea what you're trying to say but you seem to want to push the idea that Sheila was still bleeding when the police found her - but that can't be the case because the blood around her mouth was dry, cracking with no sign of expirated blood. There is a reason why the photo you posted only shows the neck - whoever used it, didn't want anyone seeing the dried cracked blood on her face.
-
well it perverting the course of justice and he would be very lickely to get cought.
admititadly he has got a lot of front but surely even he wouldent think he could get away with that.
He recons he could have got Hitler acquitted lol
https://youtu.be/F7we7CsYptU?t=37m9s (https://youtu.be/F7we7CsYptU?t=37m9s)
-
It's the same photo - they only took ONE set. I have no idea what you're trying to say but you seem to want to push the idea that Sheila was still bleeding when the police found her - but that can't be the case because the blood around her mouth was dry, cracking with no sign of expirated blood. There is a reason why the photo you posted only shows the neck - whoever used it, didn't want anyone seeing the dried cracked blood on her face.
Have a look and make your own mind up. If Distefano has edited the photo like Hartley claims then they are not the same photo. simple
(http://s30.postimg.org/fzmgbv9v5/compare3.jpg)
-
He recons he could have got Hitler acquitted lol
https://youtu.be/F7we7CsYptU?t=37m9s (https://youtu.be/F7we7CsYptU?t=37m9s)
well he dident do a very good job with saddam.
-
He recons he could have got Hitler acquitted lol
https://youtu.be/F7we7CsYptU?t=37m9s (https://youtu.be/F7we7CsYptU?t=37m9s)
He couldn't get Bamber off!
-
if you try and intrudice fake evedence into an appeal there consquences if authites notice you have done and i cant for the life of me see how they wouldent notice.
-
if you try and intrudice fake evedence into an appeal there consquences if authites notice you have done and i cant for the life of me see how they wouldent notice.
But it hasn't been used in any evidence - it was for PUBLICITY and PROPAGANDA purposes.!
-
Have a look and make your own mind up. If Distefano has edited the photo like Hartley claims then they are not the same photo. simple
(http://s30.postimg.org/fzmgbv9v5/compare3.jpg)
They most certainly are the same photograph, although a higher resolution image has been used to create the manipulated 'redder' image.
You are being purposely obtuse. It is not something I claim, it is a fact and the evidence of which is in front of you.
Your posts remind me of somebody else. :-\
-
They most certainly are the same photograph, although a higher resolution image has been used to create the manipulated 'redder' image.
You are being purposely obtuse. It is not something I claim, it is a fact and the evidence of which is in front of you.
Your posts remind me of somebody else. :-\
He surely can't think that we are suggesting he took Mike's pictures of pictures and enhanced them? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
He surely can't think that we are suggesting he took Mike's pictures of pictures and enhanced them? ;D ;D ;D ;D
David is not genuine in his arguments, he is being purposely stupid and slow to understand. I don't believe he's being honest.
-
David is not genuine in his arguments, he is being purposely stupid and slow to understand. I don't believe he's being honest.
Well, just in case and just to clarify - the pictures that Distefano enhanced, are not the pictures of pictures that Mike took, they are high res copies of the crime scene photographs BUT the throat section you originally posted is a section of the SAME picture with the dried cracked blood - only the hue has been enhanced on the section to make it LOOK like fresh wet flowing blood.
-
David is not genuine in his arguments, he is being purposely stupid and slow to understand. I don't believe he's being honest.
Somebody is very obviously seeking attention. Please don't indulge him/her/it.
-
David is not genuine in his arguments, he is being purposely stupid and slow to understand. I don't believe he's being honest.
Agreed! I've observed this for sometime.
-
Somebody is very obviously seeking attention. Please don't indulge him/her/it.
:-[ I missed this.. Oops.. :)
-
They most certainly are the same photograph, although a higher resolution image has been used to create the manipulated 'redder' image.
You are being purposely obtuse. It is not something I claim, it is a fact and the evidence of which is in front of you.
Your posts remind me of somebody else. :-\
You missunderstand what I am saying. If you have two copies of the same photo then photoshop one of those photos then it is no longer the same photo as the origional. The crime scene "photo" then becomes a forgery.
Come to think of it, since his campaign is now a registered non profit company trying to obtain donations from the public if they publicise photos or any such things they know to be false that could be illegal :-\
-
You missunderstand what I am saying. If you have two copies of the same photo then photoshop one of those photos then it is no longer the same photo as the origional. The crime scene "photo" then becomes a forgery. Then we agree!
Come to think of it, since his campaign is now a registered non profit company trying to obtain donations from the public if they publicise photos or any such things they know to be false that could be illegal :-\ - That would be up to EP as they have the originals, I guess they don't think it's worth it.
-
I don't see David as having a particular agenda. He has always been courteous and posts what he believes to be the truth. It's only like believing many things posted online like the Sheila and the monastery story and other titbits which even the most discerning posters can fall for.
-
You missunderstand what I am saying. If you have two copies of the same photo then photoshop one of those photos then it is no longer the same photo as the origional. The crime scene "photo" then becomes a forgery.
No!!!! >:( >:( >:(
You are misunderstanding, although I can't see how you don't get it. Even Lookout gets it. :o Which leads me to believe you are not being genuine.
Both images are from the same original photograph at some point, in the same way as if I took a monochrome photocopy of it, it would still come from the same photograph.
One copy is a lower resolution, because Mike took a photograph of a printed photograph. So the resolution of the image is reduced, however it is still sufficient to see that the blood in Sheilas mouth is dry and clotting, and blood which has flowed from her mouth is dry and cracked.
Another copy has been taken directly from the negatives by the defence team whilst GDS was involved, it has then been cropped to cut out the obviously dry blood. It has then been edited to increase the warmth, vibrancy and saturation, which makes the reds appear brighter as if it is fresher blood.
It is not difficult to understand and it is undeniable that this is the case.
If you want to pretend to be stupid and argue that black is white, then that's up to you. ::)
-
No!!!! >:( >:( >:(
You are misunderstanding, although I can't see how you don't get it. Even Lookout gets it. :o Which leads me to believe you are not being genuine.
Both images are from the same original photograph at some point, in the same way as if I took a monochrome photocopy of it, it would still come from the same photograph.
One copy is a lower resolution, because Mike took a photograph of a printed photograph. So the resolution of the image is reduced, however it is still sufficient to see that the blood in Sheilas mouth is dry and clotting, and blood which has flowed from her mouth is dry and cracked.
Another copy has been taken directly from the negatives by the defence team whilst GDS was involved, it has then been cropped to cut out the obviously dry blood. It has then been edited to increase the warmth, vibrancy and saturation, which makes the reds appear brighter as if it is fresher blood.
It is not difficult to understand and it is undeniable that this is the case.
If you want to pretend to be stupid and argue that black is white, then that's up to you. ::)
I get the impression that whatever colour David believes the waters to be, he tries to muddy them. The only certainty I have of his intention is that it leaves me bemused.
-
You missunderstand what I am saying. If you have two copies of the same photo then photoshop one of those photos then it is no longer the same photo as the origional. The crime scene "photo" then becomes a forgery.
Come to think of it, since his campaign is now a registered non profit company trying to obtain donations from the public if they publicise photos or any such things they know to be false that could be illegal :-\
yes if they did it knowingly it would be.
-
I thought Scipio did a fair job of challenging Mike's arguments.
I didn't read most of his posts simply because life is too short, he would write an essay to explain something that other members had previously explained succinctly in half a dozen words. Part of his tactic was to wear his opponent out by flooding the boards with volume rather then necessarily content.
Not that I mean to take anything away from him, I agree that he did a stellar job in challenging Mike.
There 'seems' to be less emotion in the disagreements that occur on the forum these days. I'm rarely hounded or attacked now, whereas at one time I couldn't post a single word without being rounded on (not that I was entirely blameless :)) ).
-
other than making up rubbish wich has allready been proved i couldent see what he did.
-
I didn't read most of his posts simply because life is too short, he would write an essay to explain something that other members had previously explained succinctly in half a dozen words. Part of his tactic was to wear his opponent out by flooding the boards with volume rather then necessarily content.
Not that I mean to take anything away from him, I agree that he did a stellar job in challenging Mike.
I really don't get what motivated him, he was ALWAYS posting non stop except for Sunday when he attended Church. ;D
-
I really don't get what motivated him, he was ALWAYS posting non stop except for Sunday when he attended Church. ;D
Yes I agree with you on that. I think he said he just likes to argue.
I guess "what's their motivation", can be applied to all of us though, at least to some degree.
I've invested a great deal of time on this forum over the last five or six years (as have others), I'm not sure what my motivation is, originally it was to find out for myself whether JB was guilty rather than simply accepting what I was told, but I came to my own conclusions a long time ago.
I do find the forum to be addictive, which is why I make myself have a break every now and then. In fact I only popped in again for a quick peek, but that was about 300 posts ago. :-[
-
Yes I agree with you on that. I think he said he just likes to argue.
I guess "what's their motivation", can be applied to all of us though, at least to some degree.
I've invested a great deal of time on this forum over the last five or six years (as have others), I'm not sure what my motivation is, originally it was to find out for myself whether JB was guilty rather than simply accepting what I was told, but I came to my own conclusions a long time ago.
I do find the forum to be addictive, which is why I make myself have a break every now and then. In fact I only popped in again for a quick peek, but that was about 300 posts ago. :-[
I believe your motivation is probably similar to mine. In that part of your mind is never 100% satisfied with the evidence and that there is always a shade of doubt somewhere that is compelling you to always seek new information in the hope it can be solved completely.
I believe this applies to most rational people interested in the case. Then you have the emotional fanatics that take their belief in guilt or innocence to the point of Zealotry, what motivates them I do not know.
-
I believe your motivation is probably similar to mine. In that part of your mind is never 100% satisfied with the evidence and that there is always a shade of doubt somewhere that is compelling you to always seek new information in the hope it can be solved completely.
I believe this applies to most rational people interested in the case. Then you have the emotional fanatics that take their belief in guilt or innocence to the point of Zealotry, what motivates them I do not know.
I don't think there is ANY doubt in Hartley's mind.
-
Anyone seen Part Two of Terry Mullins polygraph testing ?
This guy trained at Maryland Institute of Criminal Justice, USA.
-
Anyone seen Part Two of Terry Mullins polygraph testing ?
This guy trained at Maryland Institute of Criminal Justice, USA.
Didn't I read that it was a 6 week course?
-
Anyone seen Part Two of Terry Mullins polygraph testing ?
This guy trained at Maryland Institute of Criminal Justice, USA.
Passing a polygraph 27 years after the crime don't mean anything.
If they gave him one when they first arrested him and he passed that then It might be somewhat convincing
-
Didn't I read that it was a 6 week course?
Oh I've no idea. I wasn't listening.
-
Passing a polygraph 27 years after the crime don't mean anything.
If they gave him one when they first arrested him and he passed that then It might be somewhat convincing
Added to that, hasn't he done several over the years? That being so, it wouldn't be something he was new to.
-
Passing a polygraph 27 years after the crime don't mean anything.
If they gave him one when they first arrested him and he passed that then It might be somewhat convincing
He'd been asking for ages to be tested,but it fell on deaf ears,so maybe the powers that be would hope he'd forget about it.
-
He'd been asking for ages to be tested,but it fell on deaf ears,so maybe the powers that be would hope he'd forget about it.
Then again,if it doesn't work,why bother at all ?
-
Added to that, hasn't he done several over the years? That being so, it wouldn't be something he was new to.
My mistake. It's regular health checks he's had.
-
Added to that, hasn't he done several over the years? That being so, it wouldn't be something he was new to.
No he has only done one. He spent many years asking for permission to take a polygraph then the home office eventually let him.
See CALs book
Jeremy passed a polygraph examination at HMP Full Sutton after years of petitioning the Home Secretary for permission to sit the test
-
Didn't I read that it was a 6 week course?
A crash course in fake science. The lie detector is a myth, it simply doesn't work the way it is claimed. What it does do sometimes is instill fear in the guilty party which can lead to a confession as happened with Adrian Prout.
-
A crash course in fake science. The lie detector is a myth, it simply doesn't work the way it is claimed. What it does do sometimes is instill fear in the guilty party which can lead to a confession as happened with Adrian Prout.
Yes, John. I noted your opinion on "another" forum ;D I can quite see that they might instil fear in a guilty party lacking understanding of their capabilities.
-
Passing a polygraph 27 years after the crime don't mean anything.
If they gave him one when they first arrested him and he passed that then It might be somewhat convincing
Although I think he would have passed anyway (psychopathy), I agree that it would have had more weight had he taken it BEFORE being convicted.
-
Didn't I read that it was a 6 week course?
It was an 11 week course, he mentions it in the Vlog.