Jeremy Bamber Forum
JEREMY BAMBER CASE => Jeremy Bamber Case Discussion => Topic started by: Bill Robertson on July 04, 2017, 01:59:PM
-
DCI 621 Stuart Smith of Essex Police is the gatekeeper for all issues relating to Jeremy Bamber.
-
DCI 621 Stuart Smith of Essex Police is the gatekeeper for all issues relating to Jeremy Bamber. Please see the attached document.
Hello Bill
my laptop is not the best quality but I would think Stuart Smith does need glasses or indeed new ones if he cannot see what I see and I do need glasses always borrow other folks :)
-
Hello Bill
my laptop is not the best quality but I would think Stuart Smith does need glasses or indeed new ones if he cannot see what I see and I do need glasses always borrow other folks :)
Hi Bron my reading glasses are £4.50 for two pairs from Tesco but I can see really clearly in them especially when the rain has gone.
-
Hello Bill
my laptop is not the best quality but I would think Stuart Smith does need glasses or indeed new ones if he cannot see what I see and I do need glasses always borrow other folks :)
How many wounds, just out of interest?
-
Hi Bron my reading glasses are £4.50 for two pairs from Tesco but I can see really clearly in them especially when the rain has gone.
Hi Maggie have you looked at Bill's document if so what do you see? My reading glasses cost me nothing as I borrow hehehe I have those things on my eyes so must get them removed :) can't spell the word :'(
-
How many wounds, just out of interest?
Bill I will go back and count them now I have discovered I can zoom in and as is my nature my estimate will be conservative :)
-
Bill looks like 10/11 but would guess some are relating to the another if you know what I mean One looks like a three scratch mark the two big gauge marks trail into finer ones then I see other smaller type but I see them and I am not biased.
Aye, more than none then! Poor old Stuart; he may be drummed out on fitness grounds.
-
I think his prescription must be strong.. 8)
-
I can't see any wounds here. Just blood. It would be Sheila's blood as the only blood on her nightdress was her own.
Weak.
-
Aye, more than none then! Poor old Stuart; he may be drummed out on fitness grounds.
Bill biased posters will say none as will people with something to hide but they are clearly gauge marks and the three together are scratches done by three fingers wish I had the equipment to blow the picture up and get a better view I remember Lookout posting about this but she was laughed at and told they were just blood marks I am thinking maybe lookout was right about other things as well
-
I can't see any wounds here. Just blood. It would be Sheila's blood as the only blood on her nightdress was her own.
Weak.
Me either.
-
Looks like at least one crescent gouge which has then also scraped the skin. The marks next to it have also scraped the skin in the same manner but dont form a clear cresent. There is a indentation which is not easy to make out on the inside of her index finger / thumb span.
-
Looks like at least one crescent gouge which has then also scraped the skin. The marks next to it have also scraped the skin in the same manner but dont form a clear cresent. There is a indentation which is not easy to make out on the inside of her index finger / thumb span.
That IS Sheila's right hand, is it not? I'm just wondering how, if she was busy shooting people, with the gun in her right hand, how anyone would have been able to inflict wounds on her hands with a rifle's length between them. Had there been some sort of fisticuffs fight sans rifle, I imagine she could have been overcome before she reached for the rifle. However, it's not impossible, IF those marks are wounds, that she may have struggled briefly with Jeremy before he shot her.
-
Hi Bill,I see grab marks which have penetrated the flesh.Much the same as were on June and Neville's arm and as " Taff " first stated--- " a domestic ". Which had obviously been amongst the three adults who were there.
-
Hi Bill,I see grab marks which have penetrated the flesh.Much the same as were on June and Neville's arm and as " Taff " first stated--- " a domestic ". Which had obviously been amongst the three adults who were there.
Exactly right, as Taff was all along.
-
That IS Sheila's right hand, is it not? I'm just wondering how, if she was busy shooting people, with the gun in her right hand, how anyone would have been able to inflict wounds on her hands with a rifle's length between them. Had there been some sort of fisticuffs fight sans rifle, I imagine she could have been overcome before she reached for the rifle. However, it's not impossible, IF those marks are wounds, that she may have struggled briefly with Jeremy before he shot her.
If somebody is gouging her hand, with secondary scraping as the hand / wrist is pulled away during the tussle - I would be minded to consider whether she had hold of something and there were forcible attempts to loosen her grip.
-
Aye, more than none then! Poor old Stuart; he may be drummed out on fitness grounds.
Bill been back to the picture this time wearing glasses and I see as explained earlier 3 or 4 gauge and scratch marks lots of the marks are blood but it seems to me when Sheila was beating Nevill he managed to mark her but was too badly injured to harm her. If Sheila fought with Jeremy he would have been marked and Julie would have noticed and brought it up in her statement to EP Just my humble opinion
-
If somebody is gouging her hand, with secondary scraping as the hand / wrist is pulled away during the tussle - I would be minded to consider whether she had hold of something and there were forcible attempts to loosen her grip.
Roch maybe Nevill or June were trying to take the rifle from Sheila and I suspect they were marked quite badly Jeremy was not as far as we know.
-
Bill been back to the picture this time wearing glasses and I see as explained earlier 3 or 4 gauge and scratch marks lots of the marks are blood but it seems to me when Sheila was beating Nevill he managed to mark her but was too badly injured to harm her. If Sheila fought with Jeremy he would have been marked and Julie would have noticed and brought it up in her statement to EP Just my humble opinion
Fully agree; I see 5 clear cuts or marks, with 2-3 possible additional small grazes. It was quite a tussle to try to prise the rifle away from Sheila, which failed, obviously.
-
Sheila would have been like a wild animal that night and nobody would have stood an earthly. I often wonder if Neville had been forced to ring Jeremy to go to WHF so that she could have put an end to him too .
-
Sheila would have been like a wild animal that night and nobody would have stood an earthly. I often wonder if Neville had been forced to ring Jeremy to go to WHF so that she could have put an end to him too .
Sheila was like a tortoise. She was on Haloperidol and under sedation. Easy prey for Bamber.
-
Sheila would have been like a wild animal that night and nobody would have stood an earthly. I often wonder if Neville had been forced to ring Jeremy to go to WHF so that she could have put an end to him too .
Looking at this scenario would take out the " mystery " as to why Neville would have rang Jeremy and not the police,initially.Sheila had wanted them all dead methinks.
-
Sheila was like a tortoise. She was on Haloperidol and under sedation. Easy prey for Bamber.
Doesn't look like she was easy prey for anyone, tbf.
-
I'd like to see anyone tackle someone who's having a psychotic attack.
Was it 3 GP's who couldn't " pacify " her when she was with Freddie ?
-
Bill been back to the picture this time wearing glasses and I see as explained earlier 3 or 4 gauge and scratch marks lots of the marks are blood but it seems to me when Sheila was beating Nevill he managed to mark her but was too badly injured to harm her. If Sheila fought with Jeremy he would have been marked and Julie would have noticed and brought it up in her statement to EP Just my humble opinion
Exactly Susan
-
Doesn't look like she was easy prey for anyone, tbf.
Sheila the wild animal with no gun powder on her nightdress or body. Was she a magician as well ?
-
So they released crime scene pictures of Sheila's right hand showing gouge marks even though Vanezis said they were free from injury? People ask why/how EP managed to misread the scene as professionals but then make out they are idiots with things like this slip. Make your mind up! Those pictures aren't clear enough to tell what the marks are and there certainly isn't 5 or any graze marks, they are just smears. You can talk yourself into anything if you try hard enough!
-
Sheila the wild animal with no gun powder on her nightdress or body. Was she a magician as well ?
Maybe Sheila hadn't worn her nightdress while going mad with a rifle ?? ::) No gunpowder,etc.
-
So they released crime scene pictures of Sheila's right hand showing gouge marks even though Vanezis said they were free from injury? People ask why/how EP managed to misread the scene as professionals but then make out they are idiots with things like this slip.
Caroline - is there any other way you can explain what you mean for this bit? I dont understand the wording.
-
Caroline - is there any other way you can explain what you mean for this bit? I dont understand the wording.
People have argued that they don't believe EP would have misread the crime scene as a suicide if it was staged. But this thread suggests that they released CS pictures that show gouges when they official line is that her hands had no injuries. Are EP clever on the one hand but dumb on the other?
-
People have argued that they don't believe EP would have misread the crime scene as a suicide if it was staged. But this thread suggests that they released CS pictures that show gouges when they official line is that her hands had no injuries. Are EP clever on the one hand but dumb on the other?
Yes I agree they wouldn't misread the crime scene if it was staged. If they came across a staged crime scene - in the manner that this one was - then I believe they would have cottoned on to it. It's therefore paradoxical that they themselves ended up staging the crime scene in a not totally convincing manner.
Regarding release of crime photos etc. I think we would need to know which photos were released when and what the quality of those photos were.
-
People have argued that they don't believe EP would have misread the crime scene as a suicide if it was staged. But this thread suggests that they released CS pictures that show gouges when they official line is that her hands had no injuries. Are EP clever on the one hand but dumb on the other?
It is not as simple as that, it hardly ever is. The trial lawyers and the jury were shown photographs that were in effect 'whole body' i.e. no close-up details. It is apparent from the numerous questions asked by the Judge, Prosecution and Defence lawyers, that they struggled to see any detail of the wounds. In my view, that is what Ainsley intended, so that Vanezis' testimony would be accepted without question.
The photographs were then never intended to be seen again, except by a very small number of people who were concerned with Jeremy's appeals. The general public were never meant to see any crime scene photos. Then, out of the blue, along came the internet and websites like the JB Forum where crime scene photos have been posted. With the right software and a lot of time and experimentation it has been possible to produce enlarged images that the police would never have dreamed were possible in 1985. So, the police were not dumb, they just didn't anticipate the development of the internet, or digital image processing.
-
Yes I agree they wouldn't misread the crime scene if it was staged. If they came across a staged crime scene - in the manner that this one was - then I believe they would have cottoned on to it. It's therefore paradoxical that they themselves ended up staging the crime scene in a not totally convincing manner.
Regarding release of crime photos etc. I think we would need to know which photos were released when and what the quality of those photos were.
They did 'cotton on to it'. Bamber was charged in September 1985.
-
It is not as simple as that, it hardly ever is. The trial lawyers and the jury were shown photographs that were in effect 'whole body' i.e. no close-up details. It is apparent from the numerous questions asked by the Judge, Prosecution and Defence lawyers, that they struggled to see any detail of the wounds. In my view, that is what Ainsley intended, so that Vanezis' testimony would be accepted without question.
The photographs were then never intended to be seen again, except by a very small number of people who were concerned with Jeremy's appeals. The general public were never meant to see any crime scene photos. Then, out of the blue, along came the internet and websites like the JB Forum where crime scene photos have been posted. With the right software and a lot of time and experimentation it has been possible to produce enlarged images that the police would never have dreamed were possible in 1985. So, the police were not dumb, they just didn't anticipate the development of the internet, or digital image processing.
You're thread picture doesn't show any injuries. It just shows blood on her hand. Which is visible in the long distance pictures.
-
You're thread picture doesn't show any injuries. It just shows blood on her hand. Which is visible in the long distance pictures.
That being the case - why do the two almost parallel strips of bloodstains stop - right at the point where they they reach the clearer darker lines?
What stopped the bloodstaining from going beyond the darker clear lines?
Why do the two streaks of bloodstaining occur beneath the darker lines and not above them?
-
You're thread picture doesn't show any injuries. It just shows blood on her hand. Which is visible in the long distance pictures.
I can't see anything on my laptop but I have a kindle tablet which isn't the greatest it the photos are really clear, I can see scrapes and bruising and nail wounds on her arm. Thing is I have never bothered to look at the photos on the tablet.
-
That being the case - why do the two almost parallel strips of bloodstains stop - right at the point where they they reach the clearer darker lines?
What stopped the bloodstaining from going beyond the darker clear lines?
Why do the two streaks of bloodstaining occur beneath the darker lines and not above them?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
There are a few blood marks on Sheila's hands. Which have always been visible.
-
I have no idea what you are talking about.
There are a few blood marks on Sheila's hands. Which have always been visible.
Then compare my question with the images. Surely that's not a difficult task?
-
I can't see anything on my laptop but I have a kindle tablet which isn't the greatest it the photos are really clear, I can see scrapes and bruising and nail wounds on her arm. Thing is I have never bothered to look at the photos on the tablet.
Do you mean hand Maggie - as opposed to arm?
-
Then compare my question with the images. Surely that's not a difficult task?
I still don't understand. There are blood marks on Sheila's hands. Which isn't surprising as she was shot twice in the throat & there was also her own blood on her nightdress & bible.
-
Do you mean hand Maggie - as opposed to arm?
Oh yes, sorry Roch I was on my phone in the sun, now on my tablet but it has a life of its own and decides what I should be writing!
Keeps calling you Rich as well.
-
Supporters need to focus on the huge frame.
A picture of Sheila's hand with blood on will not negate all the incriminating evidence. The picture is inconclusive anyway.
-
I still don't understand. There are blood marks on Sheila's hands. Which isn't surprising as she was shot twice in the throat & there was also her own blood on her nightdress & bible.
OK, so getting back to my question -
why do the two almost parallel strips of bloodstains stop - right at the point where they they reach the clearer darker lines?
What stopped the bloodstaining from going beyond the darker clear lines?
Why do the two streaks of bloodstaining occur beneath the darker lines and not above them?
How do two gunshot wounds in the neck create such bloodstains? ::)
-
Oh yes, sorry Roch I was on my phone in the sun, now on my tablet but it has a life of its own and decides what I should be writing!
Keeps calling you Rich as well.
Dont mind Rich but not keen on being called Dick :))
-
OK, so getting back to my question -
How do two gunshot wounds in the neck create such bloodstains? ::)
How do I know ? Best ask a pathologist.
How did Sheila have no gun shot residue on her hands or nightdress ? Best ask a magician.
-
Dont mind Rich but not keen on being called Dick :))
With you on that one Roch 8)
-
How do I know ? Best ask a pathologist.
How did Sheila have no gun shot residue on her hands or nightdress ? Best ask a magician.
For the second time----by NOT wearing her nightdress.Doesn't take a magician to work that out. ::)
-
I still don't understand. There are blood marks on Sheila's hands. Which isn't surprising as she was shot twice in the throat & there was also her own blood on her nightdress & bible.
Surely that is the point most people can't see anything clearly on their computer screens but on this tablet I can see a crescent nail mark quite clearly and scrapes/scratches and bruising. What looks like red smears of blood are more like grazes/scratch trails. There's a small cut at the side of her index finger
-
For the second time----by NOT wearing her nightdress.Doesn't take a magician to work that out. ::)
Did she put it on after shooting herself twice ?
-
Surely that is the point most people can't see anything clearly on their computer screens but on this tablet I can see a crescent nail mark quite clearly and scrapes/scratches and bruising. What looks like red smears of blood are more like grazes/scratch trails. There's a small cut at the side of her index finger
If you can see it... and I can see it... and Susan can see it... and Bill can see it - then at least I'm not hallucinating ;)
-
For the second time----by NOT wearing her nightdress.Doesn't take a magician to work that out. ::)
Lookout I have always thought the nightdress Sheila was wearing belonged to June a young lovely girl like her would not have worn an old wifey nightdress like that I have posted this several times in the past
-
Did she put it on after shooting herself twice ?
Maybe :-\
-
If you can see it... and I can see it... and Susan can see it... and Bill can see it - then at least I'm not hallucinating ;)
Its a shock to see it, 'Sheila had no injuries' is like a mantra. How many times have I looked at her hands and seen blood stains, debating how they got there and then bingo, clear as day they aren't blood stains after all.
-
Its a shock to see it, 'Sheila had no injuries' is like a mantra. How many times have I looked at her hands and seen blood stains, debating how they got there and then bingo, clear as day they aren't blood stains after all.
This is the tip of the iceberg Maggie.
-
Its a shock to see it, 'Sheila had no injuries' is like a mantra. How many times have I looked at her hands and seen blood stains, debating how they got there and then bingo, clear as day they aren't blood stains after all.
Maggie me and my laptop are rubbish but I can see two big gauge marks and scratches as well the mystery unfolds now Jeremy has no scratches as Julie would have seen them and told the world well well well I never :)
-
Did she put it on after shooting herself twice ?
Are you being funny ?
After having shot everyone----showered,nightdress,THEN shot herself.
-
Lookout I have always thought the nightdress Sheila was wearing belonged to June a young lovely girl like her would not have worn an old wifey nightdress like that I have posted this several times in the past
That would tie-in with the fact that the " figure " police saw through the kitchen window had been a " skinny,half-naked " person ------------which wouldn't have been Neville,so who put that nightdress on her ?
-
Are you being funny ?
After having shot everyone----showered,nightdress,THEN shot herself.
So that's why no gun shot residue was on her nightdress.
-
That would tie-in with the fact that the " figure " police saw through the kitchen window had been a " skinny,half-naked " person ------------which wouldn't have been Neville,so who put that nightdress on her ?
Hi lookout my opinion and that is all it is Sheila shot her family then she showered and I have always thought her hair looked newly washed changed into a nightie I suspect belonging to June then at some point after shot herself I really am not sure about her being down stairs but I did read on here just this week that two police officers said when they saw Sheila the blood looked like it had recently run out of her mouth. Poor Sheila.
-
So that's why no gun shot residue was on her nightdress.
Perhaps the people behind the 'no gunshot residue' are the same people behind the 'no injuries'.
Just a thought.
-
Hi lookout my opinion and that is all it is Sheila shot her family then she showered and I have always thought her hair looked newly washed changed into a nightie I suspect belonging to June then at some point after shot herself I really am not sure about her being down stairs but I did read on here just this week that two police officers said when they saw Sheila the blood looked like it had recently run out of her mouth. Poor Sheila.
I know Susan,she was completely out of control that night as things had come to a head.Very sad,but she wouldn't have been beyond redemption in the right hands before five lives had been lost.
Her diaries would have told her full story as writing her feelings must have been her salvation at times to get things off her chest.
-
I know Susan,she was completely out of control that night as things had come to a head.Very sad,but she wouldn't have been beyond redemption in the right hands before five lives had been lost.
Her diaries would have told her full story as writing her feelings must have been her salvation at times to get things off her chest.
Lookout wonder where her diary is? although maybe good nobody can read it as it would have been so private when my Mum was alive she always kept a daily account in her diary and she kept it so private and when she died I burnt them all as I had to respect her wishes and keep her thoughts private.
-
It's very quiet
-
Yes I agree they wouldn't misread the crime scene if it was staged. If they came across a staged crime scene - in the manner that this one was - then I believe they would have cottoned on to it. It's therefore paradoxical that they themselves ended up staging the crime scene in a not totally convincing manner.
Regarding release of crime photos etc. I think we would need to know which photos were released when and what the quality of those photos were.
All of which is a complete contradiction.
-
It is not as simple as that, it hardly ever is. The trial lawyers and the jury were shown photographs that were in effect 'whole body' i.e. no close-up details. It is apparent from the numerous questions asked by the Judge, Prosecution and Defence lawyers, that they struggled to see any detail of the wounds. In my view, that is what Ainsley intended, so that Vanezis' testimony would be accepted without question.
The photographs were then never intended to be seen again, except by a very small number of people who were concerned with Jeremy's appeals. The general public were never meant to see any crime scene photos. Then, out of the blue, along came the internet and websites like the JB Forum where crime scene photos have been posted. With the right software and a lot of time and experimentation it has been possible to produce enlarged images that the police would never have dreamed were possible in 1985. So, the police were not dumb, they just didn't anticipate the development of the internet, or digital image processing.
What? The police didn't anticipate photographic technology to improve so they carelessly allowed photographs that contradicted what they said (which they don't) into the public domain? O - K ???
Just for the record, how do you know what the jury saw? Something to back that claim up might be useful or (again) it's just empty claims that require bland faith. You'll find a lot of that here, but not from me.
-
Lookout wonder where her diary is? although maybe good nobody can read it as it would have been so private when my Mum was alive she always kept a daily account in her diary and she kept it so private and when she died I burnt them all as I had to respect her wishes and keep her thoughts private.
There were a number of diaries Susan,as there would have been if Sheila had kept tabs on various appointments/venues during her modelling. I believe the relatives have/had them. Serve them right if there was anything they shouldn't have seen ! There again,Sheila could also have made a record of her " problems " -----which they'd have ignored,as I noted in all their statements,they never once asked any questions about anything pertaining to anyone including Jeremy as they'd seemed to " know everything about everyone " , even though they never saw the family regularly.
-
The images in the pdf have just been manipulated, there appears to be a white dot on one area of blood staining that people are thinking is skin gouged up, but it is just where the image has been lightened and become pixilated.
Seeing the image below and wider angle images in the photo library we can see that it is simply a continuation of blood staining rather than wounds.
Nice try guys. ;)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=40868;image)
-
They did find the diary, that's how they knew she wrote "I shouldn't have been horrible to Jeremy". The others (if they exist) must in an Indiana Jones type dungeon, fashioned by EP along with the boxes of missing documents - careful how you tread :o ;D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db5rRtOExbA
-
What? The police didn't anticipate photographic technology to improve so they carelessly allowed photographs that contradicted what they said (which they don't) into the public domain? O - K ???
Just for the record, how do you know what the jury saw? Something to back that claim up might be useful or (again) it's just empty claims that require bland faith. You'll find a lot of that here, but not from me.
Jeremy has been incarcerated since 1985. The photos came only came in to the public domain in 2003 / 2004 - when Mike Tesko took photos of photos . Wasn't this something to do with either Ewen Smith or GDS? Negatives were released to the defence I think in 2011 via the CCRC.
Many moons ago in the early days of the forum - Mike Tesko said the same thing about the photos used at trial. Which was a deliberate strategy.
-
They are " digs " into the flesh because you can see where they've smudged.
-
There were a number of diaries Susan,as there would have been if Sheila had kept tabs on various appointments/venues during her modelling. I believe the relatives have/had them. Serve them right if there was anything they shouldn't have seen ! There again,Sheila could also have made a record of her " problems " -----which they'd have ignored,as I noted in all their statements,they never once asked any questions about anything pertaining to anyone including Jeremy as they'd seemed to " know everything about everyone " , even though they never saw the family regularly.
If Sheila had been as ditsy about keeping a diary as she was about other disciplines, they'd have been pretty empty. Also, it had been YEARS since she'd had modelling assignments.
-
The images in the pdf have just been manipulated, there appears to be a white dot on one area of blood staining that people are thinking is skin gouged up, but it is just where the image has been lightened and become pixilated.
Seeing the image below and wider angle images in the photo library we can see that it is simply a continuation of blood staining rather than wounds.
Nice try guys. ;)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=40868;image)
Her nail looks well manicured.
-
Jeremy has been incarcerated since 1985. The photos came only came in to the public domain in 2003 / 2004 - when Mike Tesko took photos of photos . Wasn't this something to do with either Ewen Smith or GDS? Negatives were released to the defence I think in 2011 via the CCRC.
Many moons ago in the early days of the forum - Mike Tesko said the same thing about the photos used at trial. Which was a deliberate strategy.
Whenever they were released, doesn't really matter, if they showed what is being claimed here, they'd never have seen the light of day but there is no evidence to prove that they were kept from either the defence of the jury.
-
The images in the pdf have just been manipulated, there appears to be a white dot on one area of blood staining that people are thinking is skin gouged up, but it is just where the image has been lightened and become pixilated.
Seeing the image below and wider angle images in the photo library we can see that it is simply a continuation of blood staining rather than wounds.
Nice try guys. ;)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=40868;image)
Is this the 'non manipulated' photo?
Even if it is - I'm sorry - but what I see are a full crescent gouge with a stain underneath it and a partial crescent gouge with a stain underneath it. In the images put up by Bill - it is possible to see that the partical cresecent gouge is actually separated. The stains underneath are still quite possibly grazes even in this image.
There is also still a distinctive 'nick' on the inside of Sheila's forefinger - above where the side of the hand eventually meets the thumb.
-
Her nail looks well manicured.
It does.
This is actually the very same image, taken from this forum (originally a still frame from a documentary) that Bill has used in his pdf.
I've just run this same image through a few different filters in Photoshop and got the same results.
-
The crescent is simply dried blood, there is a corresponding stain on the the dress.
-
Whenever they were released, doesn't really matter, if they showed what is being claimed here, they'd never have seen the light of day but there is no evidence to prove that they were kept from either the defence of the jury.
They could hardly have been shown at trial this close up - if the prosecution's case was that Sheila had no injuries. As somebody in the jury or defence with the same vision as my self, Maggie, Bill, Susan etc would probably have questioned why she had crescent gouges.
I cannot see how bleeding gunshot wounds to the neck/throat can cause crescent shaped blood stains with further bloodstains underneath them in the form of a nail scrape / graze.
-
The images in the pdf have just been manipulated, there appears to be a white dot on one area of blood staining that people are thinking is skin gouged up, but it is just where the image has been lightened and become pixilated.
Seeing the image below and wider angle images in the photo library we can see that it is simply a continuation of blood staining rather than wounds.
Nice try guys. ;)
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=40868;image)
Is this consistent with her reaching for the first neck wound with her right hand as would happen involuntarily after the first shot?
-
All of which is a complete contradiction.
How do you work that out?
-
They did find the diary, that's how they knew she wrote "I shouldn't have been horrible to Jeremy". The others (if they exist) must in an Indiana Jones type dungeon, fashioned by EP along with the boxes of missing documents - careful how you tread :o ;D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db5rRtOExbA
They should have kept the diary as an exhibit as well as the alleged suicide note. A bungled defence team to cap it all. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3760.0/nowap.html
-
They could hardly have been shown at trial this close up - if the prosecution's case was that Sheila had no injuries. As somebody in the jury or defence with the same vision as my self, Maggie, Bill, Susan etc would probably have questioned why she had crescent gouges.
I cannot see how bleeding gunshot wounds to the neck/throat can cause crescent shaped blood stains with further bloodstains underneath them in the form of a nail scrape / graze.
What is the print underneath is that the nightdress?
-
Is this consistent with her reaching for the first neck wound with her right hand as would happen involuntarily after the first shot?
How would reaching for a neck wound cause a cresecent shape the size of a fingernail, with a trail similar to a scrape underneath it?
-
How would reaching for a neck wound cause a cresecent shape the size of a fingernail, with a trail similar to a scrape underneath it?
Well it would explain the blood. As for the scrape, this could have been caused when Jeremy led her forcefully to her death like a lamb to the slaughter.
-
Well it would explain the blood. As for the scrape, this could have been caused when Jeremy led her forcefully to her death like a lamb to the slaughter.
How would it explain the blood? And what did Jeremy use to scrape her when he dragged her?
-
How would it explain the blood? And what did Jeremy use to scrape her when he dragged her?
If someone has a tight grip on a person who tries to pull away, it's likely that a scrape could occur.
-
What is the print underneath is that the nightdress?
Yes it is.
-
Well it would explain the blood. As for the scrape, this could have been caused when Jeremy led her forcefully to her death like a lamb to the slaughter.
I always thought the argument was she would be so frightened of the gun no force would be needed?
-
If someone has a tight grip on a person who tries to pull away, it's likely that a scrape could occur.
Or it's just a blood stain transferred from her nightdress.
-
Yes it is.
Oh I always thought there was only a palm print on the nightdress. That looks like bloody fingerprints?
-
I always thought the argument was she would be so frightened of the gun no force would be needed?
Thank you Jan
-
Oh I always thought there was only a palm print on the nightdress. That looks like bloody fingerprints?
I miss your posts
-
I always thought the argument was she would be so frightened of the gun no force would be needed?
I don't believe she was reasoned with at the barrel of a gun. She had no idea what was happening for those few seconds she was dragged across the corridor into the master bedroom, stumbled over June, told to lie down whereupon Jeremy precipitously fired the first report, hence the mistake.
-
Those marks look for all the world like " grip " marks----as in the trigger part of the rifle being as she was right-handed.After all,she had been busy,hadn't she ?
-
I miss your posts
I might be back for a fleeting few visits. My belief has never changed . Unfortunately family circumstances forced me to take a few steps back for a while .
-
Oh I always thought there was only a palm print on the nightdress. That looks like bloody fingerprints?
It's just blood transfer from her wrist.
-
If someone has a tight grip on a person who tries to pull away, it's likely that a scrape could occur.
Yes, if they have nails to dig in to somebody - I think that's right.
But that begs the question - if Jeremy caused her to have such gouges and scrapes in the manner suggested - and Jeremy was the one being prosecuted for killing her - why did the prosecution's case against him omit the scrapes?
-
Those marks look for all the world like " grip " marks----as in the trigger part of the rifle being as she was right-handed.After all,she had been busy,hadn't she ?
But look at her nails Lookout after all that activity. I just can't believe the thumbnail is not damaged in any way.
-
It's just blood transfer from her wrist.
I think I must need to go to spec savers then because it looks like the creases in the fingers and even a very faint imprint of the end of her nails ??
-
I might be back for a fleeting few visits. My belief has never changed . Unfortunately family circumstances forced me to take a few steps back for a while .
Hello Jan so nice to see you think I will fasten you to the forum so you can't run away again :))
-
Those marks look for all the world like " grip " marks----as in the trigger part of the rifle being as she was right-handed.After all,she had been busy,hadn't she ?
The indent on the inside of her index could well be rifle related.
-
But look at her nails Lookout after all that activity. I just can't believe the thumbnail is not damaged in any way.
The thumb wouldn't have played a part Steve. The nails to " go " first are the forefinger-nails. I know that with my own. Both my thumb-nails are longer than any of the others.
( Index fingers )
-
Yes, if they have nails to dig in to somebody - I think that's right.
But that begs the question - if Jeremy caused her to have such gouges and scrapes in the manner suggested - and Jeremy was the one being prosecuted for killing her - why did the prosecution's case against him omit the scrapes?
I can't even see any scrapes, I think you're all imagining it.
-
But look at her nails Lookout after all that activity. I just can't believe the thumbnail is not damaged in any way.
There have been posts on here before that actually said it is an easy rifle to fire and to be fair we can not see all her nails so we only have reports that say they were not damaged . It also says her hands were clean and there is no way that is true is it? Perhaps they were by the time the autopsy happened?
-
I think I must need to go to spec savers then because it looks like the creases in the fingers and even a very faint imprint of the end of her nails ??
Fingers and palms were free from blood, it's just transfer from her wrist, have a look at the wider angle photographs in the library.
-
There have been posts on here before that actually said it is an easy rifle to fire and to be fair we can not see all her nails so we only have reports that say they were not damaged . It also says her hands were clean and there is no way that is true is it? Perhaps they were by the time the autopsy happened?
She had to breach, chamber & reload twice. And fight a man twice as big as him.
-
Who made the prints on her nightdress if her hands were clean ?
-
There have been posts on here before that actually said it is an easy rifle to fire and to be fair we can not see all her nails so we only have reports that say they were not damaged . It also says her hands were clean and there is no way that is true is it? Perhaps they were by the time the autopsy happened?
If Sheila's nails were damaged this would have confirmed the boss's suspicions that Sheila was the killer so there would be no need to conceal.
-
I might be back for a fleeting few visits. My belief has never changed . Unfortunately family circumstances forced me to take a few steps back for a while .
I am sorry you have had family problems Jan. I have always known how you felt about the case
-
I don't believe she was reasoned with at the barrel of a gun. She had no idea what was happening for those few seconds she was dragged across the corridor into the master bedroom, stumbled over June, told to lie down whereupon Jeremy precipitously fired the first report, hence the mistake.
I know one thing, there is not a mother living who would just lie down on command if her children had been killed or were in danger
Steve you cannot possible get in the mind of a mother in that situation
-
Not sure what Jan's form of support is going to be. If she stays.
Charging around the forum disputing over 200 pieces of published evidence is a bit of a waste of time. It's been published & that can't change.
David said all the evidence which convicted Bamber is due to 'forgery & perjury'. This approach is best one for supporters. It just needs to be worked out how this huge undertaking was organised.
-
I know one thing, there is not a mother living who would just lie down on command if her children had been killed or were in danger
Steve you cannot possible get in the mind of a mother in that situation
Jackie she was sick. If you don't get this about Sheila you will never understand the case.
-
Not sure what Jan's form of support is going to be. If she stays.
Charging around the forum disputing over 200 pieces of published evidence is a bit of a waste of time. It's been published & that can't change.
David said all the evidence which convicted Bamber is due to 'forgery & perjury'. This approach is best one for supporters. It just needs to be worked out how this huge undertaking was organised.
Don't worry your head Adam, Jan will probably put you on ignore if she has limited time to spend on the forum
-
Not sure what Jan's form of support is going to be. If she stays.
Charging around the forum disputing over 200 pieces of published evidence is a bit of a waste of time. It's been published & that can't change.
David said all the evidence which convicted Bamber is due to 'forgery & perjury'. This approach is best one for supporters. It just needs to be worked out how this huge undertaking was organised.
It is not for you to say what is best for supporters. We are all individuals .
-
Jackie she was sick. If you don't get this about Sheila you will never understand the case.
I know exactly how ill Sheila was a lot more than you and that's why this tragedy happened
One day this case will help mental health charities promote how someone can get help when in a desperate situation like Sheila
-
Not sure what Jan's form of support is going to be. If she stays.
Charging around the forum disputing over 200 pieces of published evidence is a bit of a waste of time. It's been published & that can't change.
David said all the evidence which convicted Bamber is due to 'forgery & perjury'. This approach is best one for supporters. It just needs to be worked out how this huge undertaking was organised.
I thought you might have missed my posts? And if I am wasting my time you certainly are because you Don't even have questions to ask.
Why do you think the evidence of photos of Sheila's hands is the opposite of what was presented to the jury?
.
-
I thought you might have missed my posts? And if I am wasting my time you certainly are because you Don't even have questions to ask.
Why do you think the evidence of photos of Sheila's hands is the opposite of what was presented to the jury?
.
And that's exactly why you have been so missed x
-
I thought you might have missed my posts? And if I am wasting my time you certainly are because you Don't even have questions to ask.
Why do you think the evidence of photos of Sheila's hands is the opposite of what was presented to the jury?
.
Jan sadly Adam only sees what suits him nobody can say Sheila's hands were clean and believe it.
-
And that's exactly why you have been so missed x
Jackie
I agree with you Jan is a great poster and the forum has really missed her.
-
Jackie
I agree with you Jan is a great poster and the forum has really missed her.
Susan as I have said before there are lots of people read all updates on this forum but don't post for obvious reasons
I am just so happy to be reading Jans posts again
-
I can't even see any scrapes, I think you're all imagining it.
If the image had been put up 2014 before you turned guilty, I don't think you would have had any difficulty seeing the scrapes or their source nail gouges. But you have boxed your-self in now, on the opposition benches with the hardline guilters. So you have to try and bluff it out and play 🙈
-
Jan sadly Adam only sees what suits him nobody can say Sheila's hands were clean and believe it.
And you post things then deny posting it.
-
I don't believe she was reasoned with at the barrel of a gun. She had no idea what was happening for those few seconds she was dragged across the corridor into the master bedroom, stumbled over June, told to lie down whereupon Jeremy precipitously fired the first report, hence the mistake.
How did she obtain nail gouges on her hand, if this happened? A more likely scenario is that there was a desperate struggle to get her hand to release whatever it was holding on to. Have you seen the condition of her arm as well? Go and have a look in the forum archive.
-
How did she obtain nail gouges on her hand, if this happened? A more likely scenario is that there was a desperate struggle to get her hand to release whatever it was holding on to. Have you seen the condition of her arm as well? Go and have a look in the forum archive.
I don't see any nail gouges, neither is the photograph of her arm in the section marked "Case related photographs" in "Archive." She had difficulty pouring a drink into a tumbler, let alone reloading a rifle. I really do think some of you on here are in denial, and should research schizophrenia and the effects of Haloperidol a little further.
-
I don't see any nail gouges, neither is the photograph of her arm in the section marked "Case related photographs" in "Archive." She had difficulty pouring a drink into a tumbler, let alone reloading a rifle. I really do think some of you on here are in denial, and should research schizophrenia and the effects of Haloperidol a little further.
So what is the crescent dark line then? What kind of bloodstain begins or ends in such a formation?
And what's the raw looking indent on the inside of the bottom of her index? Is that also just an isolated rectangular bloodstain? :)) Nothing to do with gripping a rifle then... given that she was the original prime suspect?
neither is the photograph of her arm in the section marked "Case related photographs" in "Archive."
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4990;image)
Steve, how does an injured person on the brink of death move their arm back and forth below their neck wound in order to receive four blobs of blood in succession? ::)
Also - how many fingers do we have on a human hand - minus the thumb? When you grab something like an arm (from a certain angle) - you place four fingers on top and a thumb undereath or to the side.
-
If the image had been put up 2014 before you turned guilty, I don't think you would have had any difficulty seeing the scrapes or their source nail gouges. But you have boxed your-self in now, on the opposition benches with the hardline guilters. So you have to try and bluff it out and play 🙈
Not at all, I really don't see any gouges or scrapes - just smears. Please don't suggest I'm lying Roch, if I saw gouges, I'd say so. I don't follow everything the guilty side believes. I don't agree with the silencer and I do believe her palms were bloodied. Don't do a David and tell me what I think - I have told you what I think and would have said the same in 2014 or even when I thought Bamber was innocent (I didn't think he was innocent in 2014).
-
Not at all, I really don't see any gouges or scrapes - just smears. Please don't suggest I'm lying Roch, if I saw gouges, I'd say so. I don't follow everything the guilty side believes. I don't agree with the silencer and I do believe her palms were bloodied. Don't do a David and tell me what I think - I have told you what I think and would have said the same in 2014 or even when I thought Bamber was innocent (I didn't think he was innocent in 2014).
I'm not calling you a liar - but I am calling out those who claim they are 'just smears'. The claim doesn't hold any credibility. If they are smears then they need to be explained. Anybody can zoom in even further and take an even closer look - even on the video still Hartley put up. Whether they are smears or scrapes (and I suggest the latter) - they have a source. If the darker deeper mark is not the source - then it is the end of the smear or scrape - and how can that be explained?
-
I think nails were scraped in a dragging action. Where the lacerations occur - is where the nails dug in to the skin and effectively stopped scraping.
-
I'm not calling you a liar - but I am calling out those who claim they are 'just smears'. The claim doesn't hold any credibility. If they are smears then they need to be explained. Anybody can zoom in even further and take an even closer look - even on the video still Hartley put up. Whether they are smears or scrapes (and I suggest the latter) - they have a source. If the darker deeper mark is not the source - then it is the end of the smear or scrape - and how can that be explained?
I have zoomed in and I don't agree that they are gouges and scrapes, unless we know what went on that night we can't explain it, those that can are either dead or in prison.
-
I think nails were scraped in a dragging action. Where the lacerations occur - is where the nails dug in to the skin and effectively stopped scraping.
I know you think that, I don't, I think they are just blood smears.
-
DCI 621 Stuart Smith of Essex Police is the gatekeeper for all issues relating to Jeremy Bamber. Please see the attached document.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8501.0;attach=49280
Here's the substance of the document.
Detective Chief Inspector 621 Stuart Smith of Kent and Essex Serious Crime Directorate has received a report detailing how the jury at the trial of Jeremy Bamber was misled by the pathologist Dr Peter Vanezis. There were in fact at least 70 wounds to the three adult victims not disclosed by Vanezis; he repeatedly said that there were no wounds to Sheila Caffell other than two bullet wounds in her neck.
Vanezis said that all the blood shown in the picture below resulted from blood running down the arm from a single bullet wound to the throat of Sheila Caffell. DCI Smith has said that he cannot see any cuts, gouges, scratches or any other kind of wound in photographs provided to him.
“The images that you include are of very low quality... There is absolutely no way that any person could reasonably say that the marks and blood trails that you depict are injuries”.
Is your eyesight better than DCI Smith’s? How many wounds do you see on Sheila’s hand?
(https://i0.wp.com/scenephotographs.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/gouge-marks.jpg?ssl=1&w=450)
Mr Justice Drake to the witness: No evidence of any other injury, what about the possibility that she had been involved in some fighting or scuffling to leave any sort of marks, other than what one might term “an injury”?
Vanezis: There was certainly no evidence of any other marks that could have been produced in a scuffle
In determining whether Jeremy Bamber was guilty of murder, any evidence that his sister, Sheila Caffell, fought with anyone inside White House Farm (WHF) in the early hours of 7th August 1985, changes the fundamental premise behind the Prosecution case against Bamber. For, supported by misleading testimony from the pathologist, Dr Peter Vanezis, the prosecution could state that Sheila received only two wounds, both gunshots to her neck. By thus testifying, Vanezis enabled the prosecution to present Sheila Caffell as an innocent victim rather than the perpetrator of violence.
The suppression of evidence that both June and Nevill Bamber received multiple minor injuries due to fighting with Sheila over possession of the rifle further enhanced the stage-managed evidence given at trial by Vanezis to the effect that only Jeremy could have been responsible for the deaths of his family. Jeremy did not kill his family –
-
In his report of September 30 1985 page 06 Vanezis goes into some detail in describing how the fractures to Nevill's skull were caused by gunshots.
Gunshot Wounds.
1 Entry wound on the right side side of the head just in front of the right ear measuring 3/16
2 Entry wound above previous wound also measuring 3/16
The track of the above two rounds was through the temporal bone
causing two punctured holes in the skull with associated linear
fractures radiating to the top to the skull in the frontal bones
as far as thu saggital suture as well as across the right orbital
plate and frontal bone. The track of both wounds continued through
the brain causing disruptive injury principally to both temporal
lobes, right parietul lobe and midbrain structures. One of the
bullets then caused everted fractures to the left parietal bone
with the bullet embedded in the fracture site. The other bullet
had exited just behind the left ear causing a fracture in the
temporal bone and a small exit laceration. The bullet was found
embedded in the laceration.
3 Entry wound in the right parietel region measuring 1/2 inch.
4 Entry wound 1/2 inch posterior to wound also measuring 1/2 inch
The track of the above two wounds was in a downward direction from the deceased's right
to left side. The bullets had initially caused two punctured fractures to the right parietal bone which merged into each other. These fractures were also associated with radiations in three directions.
The brain was severely disrupted and bullet fragments were also seen. The base of the skull was severely fractured.
But in his report of May 07 1986 page 03 he seems to contradict everything he said on the matter in September 30 1985.
In my view none of the fractures to the skull were associated with gunshot injuries. The bruising to both eyes in my view could not be associated solely with fractures to the skull but in my view could also have been caused by blows by a blunt object or objects in the vicinity.
The pattern emerges
Sheila couldn't have done it because her hands were free of blood.
Sheila couldn't have done it because she was not strong enough to cause the fractures to Nevill's skull with blows with the rifle butt.
Sheila couldn't have done it because she had no marks to suggest she had been in a struggle.
This kind of thing happens far more often than people think. It's not just about getting paid, but about ambition. If a pathologist has helped the prosecution get a conviction in a high profile case he will get a reputation as prosecution friendly and more work precisely because astute prosecutors know he is willing to bend the truth.
-
Here's a good post from McGirr at injustice anywhere
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=123&t=2931&start=10000#p187958
"The leading cause of wrongful convictions is dishonest expert witnesses, selling their services for money in a system that protects them with immunity. There is no excusing these people or trying to minimise the damage they cause."
-
In his report of September 30 1985 page 06 Vanezis goes into some detail in describing how the fractures to Nevill's skull were caused by gunshots.
But in his report of May 07 1986 page 03 he seems to contradict everything he said on the matter in September 30 1985.
Seems like misinterpretation on your part here.
The section referred to in his 07/05/86 statement is headed "Other external Injuries".
He is clearly describing additional blows to the head causing lacerations, cuts, bruising and external fractures not associated with gunshot wounds.
-
I know you think that, I don't, I think they are just blood smears.
From where? And how? What kind of blood smear ends in a crescent shape laceration - unless the smear is from the laceration itself? How does blood drip on to an arm and form a thin dark crescent line?
-
Here's the substance of the document.
Detective Chief Inspector 621 Stuart Smith of Kent and Essex Serious Crime Directorate has received a report detailing how the jury at the trial of Jeremy Bamber was misled by the pathologist Dr Peter Vanezis. There were in fact at least 70 wounds to the three adult victims not disclosed by Vanezis; he repeatedly said that there were no wounds to Sheila Caffell other than two bullet wounds in her neck.
Vanezis said that all the blood shown in the picture below resulted from blood running down the arm from a single bullet wound to the throat of Sheila Caffell. DCI Smith has said that he cannot see any cuts, gouges, scratches or any other kind of wound in photographs provided to him.
“The images that you include are of very low quality... There is absolutely no way that any person could reasonably say that the marks and blood trails that you depict are injuries”.
Is your eyesight better than DCI Smith’s? How many wounds do you see on Sheila’s hand?
(https://i0.wp.com/scenephotographs.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/gouge-marks.jpg?ssl=1&w=450)
Mr Justice Drake to the witness: No evidence of any other injury, what about the possibility that she had been involved in some fighting or scuffling to leave any sort of marks, other than what one might term “an injury”?
Vanezis: There was certainly no evidence of any other marks that could have been produced in a scuffle
In determining whether Jeremy Bamber was guilty of murder, any evidence that his sister, Sheila Caffell, fought with anyone inside White House Farm (WHF) in the early hours of 7th August 1985, changes the fundamental premise behind the Prosecution case against Bamber. For, supported by misleading testimony from the pathologist, Dr Peter Vanezis, the prosecution could state that Sheila received only two wounds, both gunshots to her neck. By thus testifying, Vanezis enabled the prosecution to present Sheila Caffell as an innocent victim rather than the perpetrator of violence.
The suppression of evidence that both June and Nevill Bamber received multiple minor injuries due to fighting with Sheila over possession of the rifle further enhanced the stage-managed evidence given at trial by Vanezis to the effect that only Jeremy could have been responsible for the deaths of his family. Jeremy did not kill his family –
'Vanezis said that all the blood shown in the picture below resulted from blood running down the arm from a single bullet wound to the throat of Sheila Caffell. DCI Smith has said that he cannot see any cuts, gouges, scratches or any other kind of wound in photographs provided to him.'
That sounds about right.
-
And you post things then deny posting it.
Adam I did apologise I can do no more and you accepted it was not intentional I had just forgot.
-
So what is the crescent dark line then? What kind of bloodstain begins or ends in such a formation?
And what's the raw looking indent on the inside of the bottom of her index? Is that also just an isolated rectangular bloodstain? :)) Nothing to do with gripping a rifle then... given that she was the original prime suspect?
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4990;image)
Steve, how does an injured person on the brink of death move their arm back and forth below their neck wound in order to receive four blobs of blood in succession? ::)
Also - how many fingers do we have on a human hand - minus the thumb? When you grab something like an arm (from a certain angle) - you place four fingers on top and a thumb undereath or to the side.
Lets agree for a moment that they are some kind of lacerations (although the term is a bit over the top), Looking at the following picture, there are linear marks leading fro what you say are fingernail gouge marks
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=40868)
However, Nevill had similar marks and so IF (and it's a BIG IF) they are inuries, they may be defence wounds and the crescent formed from the rifle barrel.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4351)
-
Sheila was so out of it from Haloperodol & sedation I doubt Bamber had to be aggressive with her.
There was a lot blood on the floor around Sheila as well as on the bible & her nightdress. So not surprising there are a few blood marks on her arm and back of her hand.
-
Adam I did apologise I can do no more and you accepted it was not intentional I had just forgot.
Hopefully Roch will clear everything up today & tell the forum how he got to see the evidence he can't disclose & if it is now with JB's legal advisors.
He was posting on this thread yesterday & must have fogotten to answer.
-
Several observations.
They cannot be deep cuts as there is not enough bleeding. They are most likely to be lacerations.
I have always gone with nails as the most probable answer. But I am not convinced they are.
The position of the marks unfortunately is over an area of skin that is variable and pliant depending on what the person is doing (specially the thumb). If you were to clench Sheila's hand into a fist those marks will change somewhat. So it will be difficult to know exactly what caused them by just a photo.
-
Hopefully Roch will clear everything up today & tell the forum how he got to see the evidence he can't disclose & if it is now with JB's legal advisors.
He was posting on this thread yesterday & must have fogotten to answer.
Hello Adam
Roch may disclose more information when he is next on.
-
Several observations.
They cannot be deep cuts as there is not enough bleeding. They are most likely to be lacerations.
I have always gone with nails as the most probable answer. But I am not convinced they are.
The position of the marks unfortunately is over an area of skin that is variable and pliant depending on what the person is doing (specially the thumb). If you were to clench Sheila's hand into a fist those marks will change somewhat. So it will be difficult to know exactly what caused them by just a photo.
David
do you see lacerations or not irrespective of what caused them what else could have caused them but a persons nails or a big cat.
-
David
do you see lacerations or not irrespective of what caused them what else could have caused them but a persons nails or a big cat.
Or the barrel of the rifle.
-
Fingers and palms were free from blood, it's just transfer from her wrist, have a look at the wider angle photographs in the library.
Well they look like finger prints to me too
-
Hello Adam
Roch may disclose more information when he is next on.
Lets hope so. Obviously if it's been passed to Bamber's legal team, he will be released this year & the industrial 32 year frame will be exposed.
-
Well they look like finger prints to me too
Hello notsure do they look like gauge marks or fingers scrapes to you too. I have looked at them time and time again and I see what I see but all our eyes are different and we all see different things Caroline thinks they maybe have been caused by the barrel of the rifle but who am I to dispute this she may well be right
-
Looks like at least one crescent gouge which has then also scraped the skin. The marks next to it have also scraped the skin in the same manner but dont form a clear cresent. There is a indentation which is not easy to make out on the inside of her index finger / thumb span.
I agree. That's how it appears to me.
-
I agree. That's how it appears to me.
If they are injuries, it would be completely impossible to say what caused them.
-
I agree. That's how it appears to me.
Neil - we must share the same optical prescription.
-
Neil - we must share the same optical prescription.
;D ;D ;D
-
;D ;D ;D
How nice to see our legal expert giving an opinion
Now where's Jan ?
-
Well they look like finger prints to me too
Thats how I see it, nothing more than smearing stains like the pathologist said, palms and finger nails completely free and we can't argue with the man who saw her after the murders who said there was nothing else psychically wrong with her in court.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7638.0;attach=44892
-
Hopefully Roch will clear everything up today & tell the forum how he got to see the evidence he can't disclose & if it is now with JB's legal advisors.
He was posting on this thread yesterday & must have fogotten to answer.
Maybe he's done like Mike did and took it to the CCRC, Mike and Z took the photo of Sheila on the bed straight to head quarters? Maybe Mikes handed over the reins now who knows?
-
Lets hope so. Obviously if it's been passed to Bamber's legal team, he will be released this year & the industrial 32 year frame will be exposed.
Better late than never.
(http://firewoodhoardersclub.com/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
-
Lets hope so. Obviously if it's been passed to Bamber's legal team, he will be released this year & the industrial 32 year frame will be exposed.
Adam if you read the posts made by Roch he stated he did not have any evidence never did just had a sighting of it so he will not be giving it to anyone and if you go and read his post not sure which post he did say the evidence will now be with the appropriate quarters. Hope this helps
-
Maybe he's done like Mike did and took it to the CCRC, Mike and Z took the photo of Sheila on the bed straight to head quarters? Maybe Mikes handed over the reins now who knows?
The last thing I read from Mike on this was that he had passed the photo to his legal advisors.
I'm not sure why anything would be passed straight to the CCRC. Surely it's better to pass it to Bamber's legal team. They will use it when the time is right in the best interests of their client.
I'm sure Roch will confirm today whether he or the person/people who showed him this bombshell evidence has passed it to Bamber's legal team.
-
Adam if you read the posts made by Roch he stated he did not have any evidence never did just had a sighting of it so he will not be giving it to anyone and if you go and read his post not sure which post he did say the evidence will now be with the appropriate quarters. Hope this helps
Ok. Hopefully Roch will tonight confirm how he saw this bombshell evidence. Before the person/people who showed him took it away with them.
And also confirm if this person/people have passed the bombshell evidence onto Bamber's legal team.
-
Thats how I see it, nothing more than smearing stains like the pathologist said, palms and finger nails completely free and we can't argue with the man who saw her after the murders who said there was nothing else psychically wrong with her in court.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7638.0;attach=44892
That's the whole point though. His findings were made to suit, in accordance with the aims of the second investigation. If you want to find a report that you can't argue with, you need to locate the report he did when Sheila was prime suspect. Good luck with that.
-
Ok. Hopefully Roch will tonight confirm how he saw this bombshell evidence. Before the person/people who showed him took it away with them.
And also confirm if this person/people have passed the bombshell evidence onto Bamber's legal team.
Adam I am sure Roch will do his best to answer your questions :)
-
Adam I am sure Roch will do his best to answer your questions :)
He's on the thread now, so I'm sure he's now posting his answers.
-
He's on the thread now, so I'm sure he's now posting his answers.
I don't think that this forum would be the place to release any information. For glaringly obvious reasons.
-
I don't think that this forum would be the place to release any information. For glaringly obvious reasons.
Jan it is a total waste of time.
-
So Roch, who said that his new evidence was and always been on the forum, has only had a sighting of it according to Susan? Plain to see now it's the same old tricks that Mike used to play, Roch has just tried it again with the pathologist having another statement that's hidden, it's the same tricks that's played out over the last six years on here, great to see posters coming back, only hope it's not for more of the same?
-
I don't think that this forum would be the place to release any information. For glaringly obvious reasons.
Release? It's already on the forum.
-
Adam I am sure Roch will do his best to answer your questions :)
It's looks like Roch is going to ignore our two questions. Which is rather rude & disappointing.
I know he's never going to say what the 'bombshell' evidence he said he saw is. But there is no reason not to say how he got to see the 'bombshell' evidence & whether it has been passed to Bamber's legal team.
-
Release? It's already on the forum.
Ha Ha, no it isn't he's only had a sighting of it?
-
A couple of questions , forgive me but I am a bit rusty on the case.
1) if the picture was taken before the swabs could it have been before the pathology report and by that time the hands could have been cleaned ?
2) as far as I know there is no proof that nevilles injuries (apart from shots) were inflicted before or after shooting?
3) purely speculation but Neville was fully aware of Sheila's violent outbursts so possibly his reaction to her hitting him or attacking him , possibly before the shooting, would surely be different to confronting Jeremy with a gun. With his background a fight with Jeremy would surely have been different than trying to calm a mentally ill woman?
4) I still think that looks like a full handprint in blood . But as the pathologist was not at the scene and he was convinced it was murder suicide then perhaps his report was not thorough enough rather than being deliberately misleading?
-
A couple of questions , forgive me but I am a bit rusty on the case.
1) if the picture was taken before the swabs could it have been before the pathology report and by that time the hands could have been cleaned ?
2) as far as I know there is no proof that nevilles injuries (apart from shots) were inflicted before or after shooting?
3) purely speculation but Neville was fully aware of Sheila's violent outbursts so possibly his reaction to her hitting him or attacking him , possibly before the shooting, would surely be different to confronting Jeremy with a gun. With his background a fight with Jeremy would surely have been different than trying to calm a mentally ill woman?
4) I still think that looks like a full handprint in blood . But as the pathologist was not at the scene and he was convinced it was murder suicide then perhaps his report was not thorough enough rather than being deliberately misleading?
How could point four be true? That's his second report when he was told Bamber was guilty says Roch?
-
Release? It's already on the forum.
I thought he said it's been discussed in a round about way on the forum.
Anyway, Roch's never going to say what he saw in March 2017. Just that he saw it.
It obviously blows wide open the industrial frame as it shows 'Sheila definately committed the massacre'.
Myself & Susan just want to clear up whether the 'bombshell' evidence is with Bamber's legal team. And how Roch got to see the 'bombshell' evidence.
-
A couple of questions , forgive me but I am a bit rusty on the case.
1) if the picture was taken before the swabs could it have been before the pathology report and by that time the hands could have been cleaned ? This is what Vanezis has alluded to in CAL's book
2) as far as I know there is no proof that nevilles injuries (apart from shots) were inflicted before or after shooting? True
3) purely speculation but Neville was fully aware of Sheila's violent outbursts so possibly his reaction to her hitting him or attacking him , possibly before the shooting, would surely be different to confronting Jeremy with a gun. With his background a fight with Jeremy would surely have been different than trying to calm a mentally ill woman? I don't think he could have put up much of a fight with either - I think he was bttered rather than fought with anyone. I also think that someone made it look like someone else, had 'gone crazy and just smashed a few things.
4) I still think that looks like a full handprint in blood . But as the pathologist was not at the scene and he was convinced it was murder suicide then perhaps his report was not thorough enough rather than being deliberately misleading? Just looks like finger marks to me.
-
But did not the report quite clearly say palm print . I remember going round on that aregument as well as whether he meant wrist or palm etc?
-
How could point four be true? That's his second report when he was told Bamber was guilty says Roch?
Sorry not quite getting your point ? I am not saying anything is true or not ? All I was saying was on the first report he would not have seen the photos and the body and how Sheila's hands would have been positioned so perhaps would not have been aware of any implications of blood on her hands . Or the blood on the nightie.
In court the implication of her hands being clean was used as a tool for her innocence in the crime .
-
That's the whole point though. His findings were made to suit, in accordance with the aims of the second investigation. If you want to find a report that you can't argue with, you need to locate the report he did when Sheila was prime suspect. Good luck with that.
Of course and we know the score there
-
Lets agree for a moment that they are some kind of lacerations (although the term is a bit over the top), Looking at the following picture, there are linear marks leading fro what you say are fingernail gouge marks
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=40868)
However, Nevill had similar marks and so IF (and it's a BIG IF) they are inuries, they may be defence wounds and the crescent formed from the rifle barrel.
(http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=887.0;attach=4351)
That doesn't work, imo. The two marks with the smears / scrapes underneath or above them (depending on how the marks are interpreted) contain differences..
Even if both of the marks were crescent-like (as it seems from the video still you have used) - one is bigger than the other.
Even if the end of the gun barrel or silencer could have penetrated the skin like a sharpened impliment and caused these wounds - I would expect to see more uniformity within both of the marks as a result.
In the images put up yesterday - it is clear to see that one mark is not only smaller than the other but is also not fully joined-up.
A laceration would not seem to be an 'over the top' turn. If those marks were on your own hand - and somebody dabbed them with TCP or similar, I would expect to see a wince and a sharp intake of breath
-
That doesn't work, imo. The two marks with the smears / scrapes underneath or above them (depending on how the marks are interpreted) contain differences..
Even if both of the marks were crescent-like (as it seems from the video still you have used) - one is bigger than the other.
Even if the end of the gun barrel or silencer could have penetrated the skin like a sharpened impliment and caused these wounds - I would expect to see more uniformity within both of the marks as a result.
In the images put up yesterday - it is clear to see that one mark is not only smaller than the other but is also not fully joined-up.
A laceration would not seem to be an 'over the top' turn. If those marks were on your own hand - and somebody dabbed them with TCP or similar, I would expect to see a wince and a sharp intake of breath
Well neither of us are experts Roch, however, uniformity would only occur if the hit was from the same angle with the same pressure. We're not even sure that they are (OK) 'lacerations' ::), but it could only ever be a best guess as to what caused them IF, they are. Anyone who knows me knows I an accident prone - TCP is my friend! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
But did not the report quite clearly say palm print . I remember going round on that aregument as well as whether he meant wrist or palm etc?
The report said blood on the wrist. But from the picture it looks like at one stage there was blood on the hand including fingers.
I still think the hands had been cleaned and bagged by the time he saw them and he just assumed it was not that important.
Like the whole crime scene assumption and sloppiness.