UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: John on July 11, 2017, 01:48:14 AM
-
Tonight I saw a post suggesting that Sheila had 10 to 15 seconds before she passed out following the first non fatal shot to her throat. A period of time in which she would have been able to discharge the second fatal shot.
The person who posted this ludicrous suggestion obviously hasn't a bloody clue as to the trauma suffered by someone who is shot in the throat at point blank range. The shock is instantaneous rendering the person temporarily incapacitated. This is followed by seering pain so intense that it again will render the person temporarily unable to function. A gunshot to the throat is so serious that it will render the victim unable to make any decisions let alone be able to target a second shot also to their throat. The whole idea is utterly preposperous and reveals a very naive thought process by those who would interject such rubbish on behalf of Jeremy Bamber.
41
-
Tonight I saw a post suggesting that Sheila had 10 to 15 seconds before she passed out following the first non fatal shot to her throat. A period of time in which she would have been able to discharge the second fatal shot.
The person who posted this ludicrous suggestion obviously hasn't a bloody clue as to the trauma suffered by someone who is shot in the throat at point blank range. The shock is instantaneous rendering the person temporarily incapacitated. This is followed by seering pain so intense that it again will render the person temporarily unable to function. A gunshot to the throat is so serious that it will render the victim unable to make any decisions let alone be able to target a second shot also to their throat. The whole idea is utterly preposperous and reveals a very naive thought process by those who would interject such rubbish on behalf of Jeremy Bamber.
Not only do they have no yardstick for it, they lack the ability to IMAGINE how they or anyone else would feel in a given circumstance. This naturally limits what they have to say about it. In this particular case, and from various posters, we've seen Sheila being canny enough to play dead after the first shot, downstairs, and then scramble her way upstairs -with shattered vertebrae!!!- to hide before the second shot finished her off, now we see her coolly deliberating, for 10 to 15 seconds, about her next move!!! NONE seems to have been capable of giving any thought to how it might have FELT to be Sheila -if they had, they'd probably have seen their scenario was impossible- her fear at finding herself in such a threatening situation whilst being in a place which has afforded her safety, would have rendered confused thought processes. Shock, searing pain and blood loss will do as you've described.
The innocent side of blue appears to be gaining strength -which is as it should be on a forum which promotes Jeremy's innocence- and they have a good poster to champion them. However, it does appear -to me- that desperation has crept in. Last night was spent discussing the state of the master bedroom and whether the pictures were of the same room AND if they weren't, had there been an attempt to deceive/trick the eye? Even those items on a chair were questioned because one shot showed them heaped and another showed them tidied. As the list of conspirators becomes added to -and it has to in order to make conspiracy work- conspiracy becomes impossible so more conspirators become added.................
-
The problem here is that the pathological evidence, both pre-trial and during, from Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight makes clear the following:
- SC could have taken her own life or she may have been murdered
- The time gap between the 2 gsw's was estimated by both experts to be anywhere from a few seconds to a few minutes
- Dr Vanezis said it might have been possible for SC to have walked around after the first, not immediately fatal, gsw. He thought it unlikely due to blood staining
- Dr Vanezis said SC may have been able to hold her head upright
- Both experts said after the first gsw SC may have been stunned, lost consciousness and then regained consciousness or she may not have suffered any such effects after the first gsw.
- Prof Knight said although the second gsw to SC was fatal in terms of brain damage and losing immediate consciousness the heart can keep pumping for up to some 20 mins afterwards therefore some of the bloodstaining evidenced in the soc images may have originated from the 2nd wound.
The idea the pathological evidence relating to SC in any way shows JB guilty is totally wrong. Conversely it doesn't show SC took her own life either.
-
The problem here is that the pathological evidence, both pre-trial and during, from Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight makes clear the following:
- SC could have taken her own life or she may have been murdered
- The time gap between the 2 gsw's was estimated by both experts to be anywhere from a few seconds to a few minutes
- Dr Vanezis said it might have been possible for SC to have walked around after the first, not immediately fatal, gsw. He thought it unlikely due to blood staining
- Dr Vanezis said SC may have been able to hold her head upright
- Both experts said after the first gsw SC may have been stunned, lost consciousness and then regained consciousness or she may not have suffered any such effects after the first gsw.
- Prof Knight said although the second gsw to SC was fatal in terms of brain damage and losing immediate consciousness the heart can keep pumping for up to some 20 mins afterwards therefore some of the bloodstaining evidenced in the soc images may have originated from the 2nd wound.
The idea the pathological evidence relating to SC in any way shows JB guilty is totally wrong. Conversely it doesn't show SC took her own life either.
I note that whilst all their professional pronouncements are littered with "may haves/might haves/could haves/anywhere from" not once do they categorically state "WOULD have".
-
I note that whilst all their professional pronouncements are littered with "may haves/might haves/could haves/anywhere from" not once do they categorically state "WOULD have".
Probably because they are unable to be anymore specific from a scientific perspective. Why would they categorically state "WOULD have" if it isn't possible to state one way or another?
Prof Knight: "...but almost nothing is impossible in forensic science".
Prof Knight was known as the pre-eminent pathologist of his generation/era of JB's trial. If posters think they know better then that's their perogative but I'm happy to accept the pathological evidence from Prof Knight and Dr Vanezis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Knight
-
But have they tried asking a baby not to 8)><( ?. It's just.............
-
Probably because they are unable to be anymore specific from a scientific perspective. Why would they categorically state "WOULD have" if it isn't possible to state one way or another?
Prof Knight: "...but almost nothing is impossible in forensic science".
Prof Knight was known as the pre-eminent pathologist of his generation/era of JB's trial. If posters think they know better then that's their perogative but I'm happy to accept the pathological evidence from Prof Knight and Dr Vanezis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Knight
Hmm. Vanezis covered himself well. He told CAL -I guess, on reflection- that he no longer believed Sheila moved after the first shot, which whether one chooses to accept it, or not, is rather more definite than "it might have been possible for her to walked around................" I'm happy to accept that and the finding of Prof Knight.
-
Dr. Vanezis - Examined about SC's neck wounds and blood on her hands...
-
But have they tried asking a baby not to 8)><( ?. It's just.............
Well they were both clear that the 2nd wound was virtually instantaneously fatal. So I guess this shows there were some aspects they were able to be conclusive about.
But there are very few absolutes in life!
-
Hmm. Vanezis covered himself well. He told CAL -I guess, on reflection- that he no longer believed Sheila moved after the first shot, which whether one chooses to accept it, or not, is rather more definite than "it might have been possible for her to walked around................" I'm happy to accept that and the finding of Prof Knight.
I think physiologically it was possible for SC to move voluntarily after the first gsw but the bloodstaining, or lack of, doesn't support SC moving ie standing up and moving around. I don't believe SC moved between gsw's in terms of location.
I believe SC pulled the trigger for a second time but whether this was done consciously ie voluntarily or some sort of involuntary movement eg spasm I've no idea
Whether a pathologist with more experience in gsw's could shed more light on the matter I don't know. Dr Vanezis only seems to have had limited experience with gsw's. Maybe Prof Knight had more as he was at one time a pathologist in the British army but he was also non-committal so maybe that's just how it was.
-
Tonight I saw a post suggesting that Sheila had 10 to 15 seconds before she passed out following the first non fatal shot to her throat. A period of time in which she would have been able to discharge the second fatal shot.
The person who posted this ludicrous suggestion obviously hasn't a bloody clue as to the trauma suffered by someone who is shot in the throat at point blank range. The shock is instantaneous rendering the person temporarily incapacitated. This is followed by seering pain so intense that it again will render the person temporarily unable to function. A gunshot to the throat is so serious that it will render the victim unable to make any decisions let alone be able to target a second shot also to their throat. The whole idea is utterly preposperous and reveals a very naive thought process by those who would interject such rubbish on behalf of Jeremy Bamber.
I know someone who should read this, because their medical knowledge is STARTLINGLY inadequate. (As is their "trusty magnifier" if they think that June's hand is an ornamental jug!)
-
I know someone who should read this, because their medical knowledge is STARTLINGLY inadequate. (As is their "trusty magnifier" if they think that June's hand is an ornamental jug!)
It does look a bit like a Toby jug at first glance though, so I must be going potty as well!
-
It does look a bit like a Toby jug at first glance though, so I must be going potty as well!
But surely regular posters are familiar with the image of June within the main bedroom which leaves no doubt? I'm not going to repost the graphic image just to prove the point but 100% cert it is June's hand.
It is interesting how we all visually perceive things differently. Do you recall when I thought June's bedside lamp featured the face of a monster like creature until you pointed out the lamp featured the face of an owl with a pot of cold cream or the like in front of it @)(++(* Can others see the two possibilities? In reality Myster is correct.
-
But surely regular posters are familiar with the image of June within the main bedroom which leaves no doubt? I'm not going to repost the graphic image just to prove the point but 100% cert it is June's hand.
It is interesting how we all visually perceive things differently. Do you recall when I thought June's bedside lamp featured the face of a monster like creature until you pointed out the lamp featured the face of an owl with a pot of cold cream or the like in front of it @)(++(* Can others see the two possibilities? In reality Myster is correct.
As always... ahem!
-
As always... ahem!
Except JB's case 8((()*/
-
Except JB's case 8((()*/
AHEM!!!
Let's see, off the top of my head........ &%+((£
Myster, Scipio, John, Bob, Tim, Caro and April (eventually!), Hartley, Vidvic, Mat.....
versus Mike, Gladys, Clappedout and susan.
?>)()<
-
AHEM!!!
Let's see, off the top of my head........ &%+((£
Myster, Scipio, John, Bob, Tim, Caro and April (eventually!), Hartley, Vidvic, Mat.....
versus Mike, Gladys, Clappedout and susan.
?>)()<
And unless I'm mistaken (which I'm not) Nelly has NEVER stated that he considers Bamber to be innocent. Confusing that the geezer who finances and enables the Jeremy Bamber Forum refuses to nail his colours to the mast. It doesn't exactly instill confidence in Bamber's future freedom, IMO.
-
Tonight I saw a post suggesting that Sheila had 10 to 15 seconds before she passed out following the first non fatal shot to her throat. A period of time in which she would have been able to discharge the second fatal shot.
The person who posted this ludicrous suggestion obviously hasn't a bloody clue as to the trauma suffered by someone who is shot in the throat at point blank range. The shock is instantaneous rendering the person temporarily incapacitated. This is followed by seering pain so intense that it again will render the person temporarily unable to function. A gunshot to the throat is so serious that it will render the victim unable to make any decisions let alone be able to target a second shot also to their throat. The whole idea is utterly preposperous and reveals a very naive thought process by those who would interject such rubbish on behalf of Jeremy Bamber.
Reveals a very naive thought process ay?
I happened to get that from the Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine. Although going by memory alone, I got the number of seconds slightly wrong it actually estimates five to ten seconds.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Reveals a very naive thought process ay?
I happened to get that from the Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine. Although going by memory alone, I got the number of seconds slightly wrong it actually estimates five to ten seconds.
Hey, David.
Re: the blood stain under the bible. Bearing in mind that it's almost a complete circle. Mike reckons that Sheila wrote "Special Branch" in her own blood. Obviously that's bollocks, because Mike's a loony. I reckon that Bamber tried to wipe the blood from the end of the silencer. Then tried to hide it with the bible.
-
Reveals a very naive thought process ay?
I happened to get that from the Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine. Although going by memory alone, I got the number of seconds slightly wrong it actually estimates five to ten seconds.
Why quote general medi evidence when the pathologist who carried out the autopsy makes it clear there must have been "a few seconds" time lapse between the first and second GSW?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=205.0;attach=732
-
And unless I'm mistaken (which I'm not) Nelly has NEVER stated that he considers Bamber to be innocent. Confusing that the geezer who finances and enables the Jeremy Bamber Forum refuses to nail his colours to the mast. It doesn't exactly instill confidence in Bamber's future freedom, IMO.
Only a fool would categorically state JB is innocent. Nelly has stated in the past there are some aspects that point to SC and others to JB. On balance he thinks SC was responsible. He also said the expert evidence at trial was poor particularly with regard to ballistics.
Since when have I become Nelly's spokesperson? Hehehe just trying to make JackieD jealous @)(++(*
-
Hey, David.
Re: the blood stain under the bible. Bearing in mind that it's almost a complete circle. Mike reckons that Sheila wrote "Special Branch" in her own blood. Obviously that's bollocks, because Mike's a loony. I reckon that Bamber tried to wipe the blood from the end of the silencer. Then tried to hide it with the bible.
It would be helpful if we knew whose blood formed the stain and whose blood on the bible.
Why is this info unavailable?
-
AHEM!!!
Let's see, off the top of my head........ &%+((£
Myster, Scipio, John, Bob, Tim, Caro and April (eventually!), Hartley, Vidvic, Mat.....
versus Mike, Gladys, Clappedout and susan.
?>)()<
You've forgotten Adam! A real heavyweight in the guilty camp.
-
You've forgotten Adam! A real heavyweight in the guilty camp.
Don't tell anyone, but I'm a bit in love with Adam.
-
Is he the one on top ... or underneath?
-
Tonight I saw a post suggesting that Sheila had 10 to 15 seconds before she passed out following the first non fatal shot to her throat. A period of time in which she would have been able to discharge the second fatal shot.
The person who posted this ludicrous suggestion obviously hasn't a bloody clue as to the trauma suffered by someone who is shot in the throat at point blank range. The shock is instantaneous rendering the person temporarily incapacitated. This is followed by seering pain so intense that it again will render the person temporarily unable to function. A gunshot to the throat is so serious that it will render the victim unable to make any decisions let alone be able to target a second shot also to their throat. The whole idea is utterly preposperous and reveals a very naive thought process by those who would interject such rubbish on behalf of Jeremy Bamber.
John:
Two shot suicides are common enough. It was a deceptive angle for Sheila, and the first shot was essentially a flesh wound, and she either slumped or deliberately realigned for the second shot. I have looked at it closely too, and Charlie Wilkes confirmed with a 22 of his own, unloaded of course.
She is lucky she had two bullets. She loaded two after she emptied a whole cartridge of bullets into her children.
-
Not closely enough, apparently.
A flesh wound?!!! It only ripped through innervated muscle, a main vein and shattered her 4th cervical, that's all. I'd like to see your reaction should you ever volunteer!
Charlie's demo showed a man in full control of his senses, not on Haldol medication (I think), and using a carbine version of an entirely different weapon (without even a fitted moderator). So much for the "successful" experiment!
-
John:
Two shot suicides are common enough. It was a deceptive angle for Sheila, and the first shot was essentially a flesh wound, and she either slumped or deliberately realigned for the second shot. I have looked at it closely too, and Charlie Wilkes confirmed with a 22 of his own, unloaded of course.
She is lucky she had two bullets. She loaded two after she emptied a whole cartridge of bullets into her children.
Bit of a coincidence wouldn't you say? %56&
-
Not closely enough, apparently.
A flesh wound?!!! It only ripped through innervated muscle, a main vein and shattered her 4th cervical, that's all. I'd like to see your reaction should you ever volunteer!
Charlie's demo showed a man in full control of his senses, not on Haldol medication (I think), and using a carbine version of an entirely different weapon (without even a fitted moderator). So much for the "successful" experiment!
Dr Vanezis' trial testimony makes it absolutely clear it was impossible for him to say with any certainty how SC would react to the first wound which injured the external jagular in terms of any pain and shock making clear:
"It depends on the person".
When Anthony Arlidge made reference to SC's gender and size in terms of her ability to cope with such an injury Dr Vanezis said this was no indication of a person's constitution. I think it is generally accepted women have higher pain thresholds due to childbearing. Or maybe this is an old wives tale! Not that I think it is particularly relevant either way but maybe indicative of perhaps a sexist attitude held by Anthony Arlidge, a man born in the 30's, in suggesting that SC's build and gender would make her less able to cope, mentally and physcially, with such an injury than say an athletically built male.
The lower non-fatal neck wound:
"injured soft tisse and fractured bone but has not actually immediately damaged any of the vital organs, such as the brain or the spinal chord".
-
Dr Vanezis' trial testimony makes it absolutely clear it was impossible for him to say with any certainty how SC would react to the first wound which injured the external jagular in terms of any pain and shock making clear:
"It depends on the person".
When Anthony Arlidge made reference to SC's gender and size in terms of her ability to cope with such an injury Dr Vanezis said this was no indication of a person's constitution. I think it is generally accepted women have higher pain thresholds due to childbearing. Or maybe this is an old wives tale! Not that I think it is particularly relevant either way but maybe indicative of perhaps a sexist attitude held by Anthony Arlidge, a man born in the 30's, in suggesting that SC's build and gender would make her less able to cope, mentally and physcially, with such an injury than say an athletically built male.
The lower non-fatal neck wound:
"injured soft tisse and fractured bone but has not actually immediately damaged any of the vital organs, such as the brain or the spinal chord".
Not maybe, but DEFINITELY! Women shouldn't be driving Jagulars either...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDtVJiK8Lws (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDtVJiK8Lws)
-
The lower non-fatal neck wound:
"injured soft tisse and fractured bone but has not actually immediately damaged any of the vital organs, such as the brain or the spinal chord".
Seriously though... Unless one has been hit by a .22 in the neck, then no-one knows what it would be like. It's possible that she fainted after the first neck shot, so even without a second could have bled out until dead.
-
Seriously though... Unless one has been hit by a .22 in the neck, then no-one knows what it would be like. It's possible that she fainted after the first neck shot, so even without a second could have bled out until dead.
Certainly. The first wound was mortal, as opposed to fatal.
-
Seriously though... Unless one has been hit by a .22 in the neck, then no-one knows what it would be like. It's possible that she fainted after the first neck shot, so even without a second could have bled out until dead.
Yes I agree but as Dr Vanezis said it will vary from person to person.
It is possible SC may have lost consciousness. On the other hand she may not have. Had the second gsw not supervened then yes the first gsw may well have eventually proved fatal. But the bottom line is that there's not a shred of pathological evidence to suggest SC could not have inflicted both gsw's. Conversley there's no evidence suggesting she did.
Did the jury convict on the pathological evidence? Unlikely since it doesn't touch the threshold of beyond reasonable doubt.
-
Certainly. The first wound was mortal, as opposed to fatal.
According to Dr Vanezis "if left neglected it would certainly have caused a great deal of morbidity if not fatal outcome".
As an aside I wonder what affect, if any, Haloperidol had on SC's constitution in terms of her ability to cope with any pain and shock?
-
effect 8((()*/
-
effect 8((()*/
Arrgh...I had 'effect' and then changed it to 'affect' 8((()*/
-
Arrgh...I had 'effect' and then changed it to 'affect' 8((()*/
Makes allot of difference!
-
Makes allot of difference!
Not two much eye hope or eye won't make cents 8(8-)) I'm already poorly understood by many!
-
According to Dr Vanezis "if left neglected it would certainly have caused a great deal of morbidity if not fatal outcome".
As an aside I wonder what affect, if any, Haloperidol had on SC's constitution in terms of her ability to cope with any pain and shock?
I'm delighted that he appears to agree with my own assessment 8)--))
-
I'm delighted that he appears to agree with my own assessment 8)--))
Yep but only if left neglected.
A little Google search turns up conflicting outcomes for research and studies on Haloperidol and pain relief. Like most of these things it may well depend on the individual's biochemistry.
-
Yep but only if left neglected.
A little Google search turns up conflicting outcomes for research and studies on Haloperidol and pain relief. Like most of these things it may well depend on the individual's biochemistry.
Yes, I noted that. I also noted that he didn't go quite as far as saying she could have survived. I absorbed as much as I could on the "conflicting outcomes for research and studies on Haloperidol and pain relief". The effects are always dependent on the individual patient.
-
John:
Two shot suicides are common enough. It was a deceptive angle for Sheila, and the first shot was essentially a flesh wound, and she either slumped or deliberately realigned for the second shot. I have looked at it closely too, and Charlie Wilkes confirmed with a 22 of his own, unloaded of course.
She is lucky she had two bullets. She loaded two after she emptied a whole cartridge of bullets into her children.
The first shot resulted in a very serious wound to the throat, certainly nothing akin to a flesh wound. In any event, had she shot herself her fingers would have been covered in blood following the first failed shot with blood smearing across her throat. None of this occurred as evidenced by the smear free police photos.
-
The first shot resulted in a very serious wound to the throat, certainly nothing akin to a flesh wound. In any event, had she shot herself her fingers would have been covered in blood following the first failed shot with blood smearing across her throat. None of this occurred as evidenced by the smear free police photos.
From CAL's interview with Dr Vanezis:
"Vanezis recorded in his initial notes: 'Blood-stained palm print on nightdress matches bloodstains appear to have been transferred from r.hand...Both hands not contaminated apart from bloodstains'. But in court he declared that Sheila's hands were 'completely free of blood and if she'd pressed against the nightdress I would have still seen some traces of blood on her palms. He explained that blood on her nightdress 'appearedto have been transferred from her wrist' although 'the palms of her hand were certainly not contaminated with blood, but there was spotting of blood associated and close to the wrist.' "
"Asked to address the discrepancy today, Vanezis muses: 'I'm not sure whether I said that after the blood had been washed from her hands'. Regarding his courtroom statement about the stain on her nightdress, he reflects: 'The smear in the blood on her neck wounds is obviously from putting her hand up to it. Her fingers could then have made the marks on her nightdress because there are three streaks forming the stain - two together and one slightly apart. The marks could be from her wrist, but the thickness of them definitely resembles fingers and she certainly has some blood on the side of her hand. There's also a line through the streaks where the material has folded, giving a slightly distorted pattern'. The blood trails evident on Sheila's lower right arm, together with substantial blood staining on the right side of the nightdress in the armpit area and below, reinforced the probability that she had raised her hand to her neck".
He does seem to flip-flop around &%+((£
-
From CAL's interview with Dr Vanezis:
"Vanezis recorded in his initial notes: 'Blood-stained palm print on nightdress matches bloodstains appear to have been transferred from r.hand...Both hands not contaminated apart from bloodstains'. But in court he declared that Sheila's hands were 'completely free of blood and if she'd pressed against the nightdress I would have still seen some traces of blood on her palms. He explained that blood on her nightdress 'appearedto have been transferred from her wrist' although 'the palms of her hand were certainly not contaminated with blood, but there was spotting of blood associated and close to the wrist.' "
"Asked to address the discrepancy today, Vanezis muses: 'I'm not sure whether I said that after the blood had been washed from her hands'. Regarding his courtroom statement about the stain on her nightdress, he reflects: 'The smear in the blood on her neck wounds is obviously from putting her hand up to it. Her fingers could then have made the marks on her nightdress because there are three streaks forming the stain - two together and one slightly apart. The marks could be from her wrist, but the thickness of them definitely resembles fingers and she certainly has some blood on the side of her hand. There's also a line through the streaks where the material has folded, giving a slightly distorted pattern'. The blood trails evident on Sheila's lower right arm, together with substantial blood staining on the right side of the nightdress in the armpit area and below, reinforced the probability that she had raised her hand to her neck".
He does seem to flip-flop around &%+((£
You might well &%+((£
I take it the smear he's referring to is the one (or what I believe are two) across the second fatal wound?
If those three linear stains on her nightdress are from her fingers and the result of putting them first on the neck wound, which was supposedly instantly fatal, how come she then placed her hand on the rifle near the trigger when it should realistically have flopped down onto the floor by her right side?
ETA: ... or remained resting on or near her neck?
-
You might well &%+((£
I take it the smear he's referring to is the one (or what I believe are two) across the second fatal wound?
If those three linear stains on her nightdress are from her fingers and the result of putting them first on the neck wound, which was supposedly instantly fatal, how come she then placed her hand on the rifle near the trigger when it should realistically have flopped down onto the floor by her right side?
ETA: ... or remained resting on or near her neck?
The second shot was instantly fatal. After putting her hand onto her neck after the first shot, her bloodied hand could have gone anywhere.
-
You might well &%+((£
I take it the smear he's referring to is the one (or what I believe are two) across the second fatal wound?
If those three linear stains on her nightdress are from her fingers and the result of putting them first on the neck wound, which was supposedly instantly fatal, how come she then placed her hand on the rifle near the trigger when it should realistically have flopped down onto the floor by her right side?
ETA: ... or remained resting on or near her neck?
The only smears I can see appear to be across the upper immediately fatal second gsw and do appear to be a mirror image, top and bottom, as illustrated here by John:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6386.msg257611#msg257611
However I'm not sure about the two dark blobs.
It's interesting how trial testimony from Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight both suggest SC was sitting upright for the first gsw and suggest maybe sitting on the bed.
I still maintain SC's found location/position doesn't look right. All the expert evidence supports SC falling immediately backwards after the second gsw. Therefore I would expect to see her head wedged against the bedside cabinet. Instead her head has fallen to one side which in any event would surely have hit the corner of the bedside cabinet and yet no marks to her head to support this.
The good news here is that bloodstain analysis has moved on leaps and bounds since JB's trial and with all the soc photos still available expert analysis could prove very illuminating! However strictly speaking its unlikely to assist JB at any furture appeal since the CoA have already ruled it is something that could have been adjudicated on at trial - use it or lose it! This imo is unfair as a defendant/appellant can hardly be held responsible for appropriate expert testimony. A quick read of trial testimony from Dr Vanezis, Prof Knight and John Hayward shows they were all woefully inadequate compared with modern day bloodstain analysts.
There's literally a mountain of unexplored data from physical evidence at soc by way of bloodstains, bullet trajectories both of which are underpinned by science.
-
The only smears I can see appear to be across the upper immediately fatal second gsw and do appear to be a mirror image, top and bottom, as illustrated here by John:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6386.msg257611#msg257611 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6386.msg257611#msg257611)
However I'm not sure about the two dark blobs.
It's interesting how trial testimony from Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight both suggest SC was sitting upright for the first gsw and suggest maybe sitting on the bed.
I still maintain SC's found location/position doesn't look right. All the expert evidence supports SC falling immediately backwards after the second gsw. Therefore I would expect to see her head wedged against the bedside cabinet. Instead her head has fallen to one side which in any event would surely have hit the corner of the bedside cabinet and yet no marks to her head to support this.
The good news here is that bloodstain analysis has moved on leaps and bounds since JB's trial and with all the soc photos still available expert analysis could prove very illuminating! However strictly speaking its unlikely to assist JB at any furture appeal since the CoA have already ruled it is something that could have been adjudicated on at trial - use it or lose it! This imo is unfair as a defendant/appellant can hardly be held responsible for appropriate expert testimony. A quick read of trial testimony from Dr Vanezis, Prof Knight and John Hayward shows they were all woefully inadequate compared with modern day bloodstain analysts.
There's literally a mountain of unexplored data from physical evidence at soc by way of bloodstains, bullet trajectories both of which are underpinned by science.
See... this is where I disagree with John, in that I don't think the smear is a mirror image. In the annotated photo attached, the wound hole (1a) and the stream of blood from that hole up to the line of symmetry should be reflected in the area (1b), but they don't match. Similarly blob (2a) should be reflected in the area (2b), but again they don't match.
This why Vanezis thought they were smears, as if a finger, thumb or other object such as the moderator end or rifle muzzle had been drawn across the wound and stream of blood from left to right, leaving those blobs on the right-hand side.
-
See... this is where I disagree with John, in that I don't think the smear is a mirror image. In the annotated photo attached, the wound hole (1a) and the stream of blood from that hole up to the line of symmetry should be reflected in the area (1b), but they don't match. Similarly blob (2a) should be reflected in the area (2b), but again they don't match.
This why Vanezis thought they were smears, as if a finger, thumb or other object such as the moderator end or rifle muzzle had been drawn across the wound and stream of blood from left to right, leaving those blobs on the right-hand side.
Yes see what you mean. Now I feel like a fool torn between the pair of you. A bit like Mary MacGreggor I suppose!
Now...did SC sit on the edge of the bed for the first lower non-fatal gsw hence the vertical bloodstaining running down her side and then relocate herself on the floor for the second upper fatal gsw hence the horizontal bloodstaining running over her arm?
David are you sure there isn't any blood NB's side of the bed that might pertain to SC? There's a substance used for bloodstaining experiments. It's bugging me that I can't recall the name but its something like Ublek!?!
-
Yes see what you mean. Now I feel like a fool torn between the pair of you. A bit like Mary MacGreggor I suppose!
Now...did SC sit on the edge of the bed for the first lower non-fatal gsw hence the vertical bloodstaining running down her side and then relocate herself on the floor for the second upper fatal gsw hence the horizontal bloodstaining running over her arm?
David are you sure there isn't any blood NB's side of the bed that might pertain to SC? There's a substance used for bloodstaining experiments. It's bugging me that I can't recall the name but its something like Ublek!?!
There is a lot of blood on that side of the bed. Apparently it's all June's who walked over there & back again after being shot up to 8 times.
This is surprising, as Sheila was shot twice there & Nevill slept there & was shot 4 times in the bedroom.
-
Yes see what you mean. Now I feel like a fool torn between the pair of you. A bit like Mary MacGreggor I suppose!
Now...did SC sit on the edge of the bed for the first lower non-fatal gsw hence the vertical bloodstaining running down her side and then relocate herself on the floor for the second upper fatal gsw hence the horizontal bloodstaining running over her arm?
David are you sure there isn't any blood NB's side of the bed that might pertain to SC? There's a substance used for bloodstaining experiments. It's bugging me that I can't recall the name but its something like Ublek!?!
Thought you didn't like soppy songs sung by swooning women?... and were more into masculine hard rock, Suzi Quatro in leather biker gear, etc.
If she did sit on Nevill's side of the bed initially, why wasn't there blood on the sheets or photos taken of any... as far as I know?
-
Just had another think about this and even more convinced that the smear is not mirrored. If it had been, then the circled area would have been far messier than it appears. So imo, definitely caused by a thumb, finger or something else being dragged across the wound once or twice from left to right, then lifted off to create those two dark blobs.
-
Try holding a rifle at arms length against ones neck to within half an inch without actually touching the skin, quite a feat. Now imagine trying to do that while semi conscious, in agony and choking on blood.
Had Sheila shot herself a second time her blood would have been on the tip of the rifle as it was held against an already bleeding neck. This would of course have resulted in blood smearing to the neck. Neither of which was evident which speaks for itself.
Clearly her killer had no difficulty positioning the rifle for the second shot as she lay head back after the initial failed shot.
-
Try holding a rifle at arms length against ones neck to within half an inch without actually touching the skin, quite a feat. Now imagine trying to do that while semi conscious, in agony and choking on blood.
Had Sheila shot herself a second time her blood would have been on the tip of the rifle as it was held against an already bleeding neck. This would of course have resulted in blood smearing to the neck. Neither of which was evident which speaks for itself.
Clearly her killer had no difficulty positioning the rifle for the second shot as she lay head back after the initial failed shot.
You make a hugely valid point, John. Every time I've tried to imagine what it might feel like to be desperate enough to shoot myself, the rifle is always pushed into my neck as a way of steadying it and ensuring that if my hand moved as I pulled the trigger, the bullet would go where I wanted it to.
-
You make a hugely valid point, John. Every time I've tried to imagine what it might feel like to be desperate enough to shoot myself, the rifle is always pushed into my neck as a way of steadying it and ensuring that if my hand moved as I pulled the trigger, the bullet would go where I wanted it to.
Is that before or after watching an episode of Coronation Street?
-
Is that before or after watching an episode of Coronation Street?
I'm perfectly certain I'd want it to be over before Coronation Street @)(++(*
-
I'm perfectly certain I'd want it to be over before Coronation Street @)(++(*
But just think what I'd miss!... such as your glorious rendition of "Ombra mai fu". 8(8-))
-
But just think what I'd miss!... such as your glorious rendition of "Ombra mai fu". 8(8-))
Awwwwww 8)><( Do listen to the difference between Cecilia Bartoli and Kathleen Battle. I do prefer CB. So much more opulent......................Sorry Mods &%54%
-
Desperate people do shoot themselves and sometimes they make such a hash of it that a second bullet is needed to finish the job. In every occasion however the initial shot resulted in a non critical superficial wound which wasn't what occurred with Sheila Caffell.
-
Awwwwww 8)><( Do listen to the difference between Cecilia Bartoli and Kathleen Battle. I do prefer CB. So much more opulent......................Sorry Mods &%54%
Sorry Mods... LOL!!!... when Holly and I are as guilty as each other for diverging from the relevant topic!
But Shhh!, while no-one's listening... yes I agree, Celia Bartoli puts Kathleen Battle in the shade (of that old plane tree) because she sings it in a deeper register and with less vibrato, which is more soothing and pleasanter on the ear.
-
*Cecilia*... smacks bottom!
-
*Cecilia*... smacks bottom!
How did you manage that? @)(++(*
-
How did you manage that? @)(++(*
I'm used to it, being into BDSM... but with no partner to play with. 8(8-))
-
I'm used to it, being into BDSM... but with no partner to play with. 8(8-))
Awwww. That's too sad 8)><(
-
APRIL! How do you think the smear or smears on her neck occurred?
-
APRIL! How do you think the smear or smears on her neck occurred?
MYSTER! The answer which comes obviously to mind is that she put her hand up to her neck automatically, took it away and looked at what was on her hands, then put her hand back. Might this explain the hand print on her nightdress?
-
MYSTER! The answer which comes obviously to mind is that she put her hand up to her neck automatically, took it away and looked at what was on her hands, then put her hand back. Might this explain the hand print on her nightdress?
But if that second wound was instantly fatal, then her right hand should still have been in position on or near the rifle trigger without moving anywhere distant. There was also no blood on the fingers of her left hand, so they couldn't have caused the smear(s) either.
-
But if that second wound was instantly fatal, then her right hand should still have been in position on or near the rifle trigger without moving anywhere distant. There was also no blood on the fingers of her left hand, so they couldn't have caused the smear(s) either.
Hmm, but I'm not coming from a position of Sheila having the gun in her own hands. She quite obviously, after the first injury, couldn't have held the gun steady with one hand AND pulled the trigger. I don't see her checking the first wound at all if she'd been responsible for it. Might her head have lolled forwards from the first shot and then placed backwards and sideways for the second shot?
-
Hmm, but I'm not coming from a position of Sheila having the gun in her own hands. She quite obviously, after the first injury, couldn't have held the gun steady with one hand AND pulled the trigger. I don't see her checking the first wound at all if she'd been responsible for it. Might her head have lolled forwards from the first shot and then placed backwards and sideways for the second shot?
There I was, enjoying my own innings, hitting sixes on this thread... and now you've just bowled a googly.
Not sure what you mean by that and how it relates to the smear(s), unless you think the lollling created a mirror image. Have to sleep on it.
-
There I was, enjoying my own innings, hitting sixes on this thread... and now you've just bowled a googly.
Not sure what you mean by that and how it relates to the smear(s), unless you think the lollling created a mirror image. Have to sleep on it.
Well, I hope your sleep wasn't unduly disturbed! The Smears!! There are finite -reasonable!!- possibilities. If we examine the extremities attached to the torso, the head is by far the heaviest -I once knew the ratio but I've forgotten it- and I'm quite convinced that the effect of the first shot -the physical shock of shattered vertebrae- would have been likely to have knocked it off it's perch, so to speak. It may have only slipped to the side but it's own weight would have forced it forward, possibly in a rolling motion? smearing the blood in the crease. It would have been necessary to lift it from that position to expose the area for the second shot. It seems to me that the obvious lifting point would be the chin -the head being dead weight, this couldn't have been accomplished with one finger- fingers coming into contact with the original wound would cause smears.
-
Yes see what you mean. Now I feel like a fool torn between the pair of you. A bit like Mary MacGreggor I suppose!
Now...did SC sit on the edge of the bed for the first lower non-fatal gsw hence the vertical bloodstaining running down her side and then relocate herself on the floor for the second upper fatal gsw hence the horizontal bloodstaining running over her arm?
David are you sure there isn't any blood NB's side of the bed that might pertain to SC? There's a substance used for bloodstaining experiments. It's bugging me that I can't recall the name but its something like Ublek!?!
Oobleck. David I know you're there - hiding from me! You could carry out some experiments with Oobleck - a non-Newtonian fluid like blood. Amazing...my name is sandwiched amongst the letters making up Newtonian ?>)()<.
-
There is a lot of blood on that side of the bed. Apparently it's all June's who walked over there & back again after being shot up to 8 times.
This is surprising, as Sheila was shot twice there & Nevill slept there & was shot 4 times in the bedroom.
Blood tests on carpet samples taken from that side of the room along with the blue socks show the blood originated from June and no one else.
June was not capable of voluntary movement after either of the gsw's sustained to her head so obviously these were inflicted later in the found location.
The physical evidence surrounding NB's gsw's by way of bloodstaining, casings, distance of shots, trajectories and wound tracks doesn't support any gsw's sustained in the master bedroom. Thread already created along with sources 8)-)))
-
Thought you didn't like soppy songs sung by swooning women?... and were more into masculine hard rock, Suzi Quatro in leather biker gear, etc.
I probably picked it up from my mum listening to Diddy David Hamilton on Radio 2 8)><( Is this part of your BDSM fantasy?
If she did sit on Nevill's side of the bed initially, why wasn't there blood on the sheets or photos taken of any... as far as I know?
According to Prof Knight's trial testimony when someone sustains a gsw there is often a momentary delay before bleeding starts. The shock causes the blood vessels to contract and then the blood comes out through the aperture. The delay may only be a few seconds.
-
Just had another think about this and even more convinced that the smear is not mirrored. If it had been, then the circled area would have been far messier than it appears. So imo, definitely caused by a thumb, finger or something else being dragged across the wound once or twice from left to right, then lifted off to create those two dark blobs.
Well as I said according to Prof Knight there's a momentary delay in blood presenting. Assuming this was the case here, the rifle (with or without silencer) was already out of the way based on soc image. So much for 'drawback' &%+((£
Based on the pathological evidence SC was incapable of voluntary movement after the second immediately fatal gsw so would not have been capable of putting her hand up to the second wound. Maybe after the first gsw she put her finger(s)/hand to the wound and transferred it to the second wound to identify the site. This seems unlikely as I would expect to see a correpsonding smear elsewhere and I can't see one.
SC's found location doesn't look right to me. Why would her head fall to the left of the cabinet? Surely it would fall straight back and end up wedged between her neck and the cabinet? I think she was nearer the connecting door and moved by the raid team in their haste to check behind that door.
The bloodstaining to the left (as I look at the image) looks to me as though it has dried and then cracked as the skin has expanded due to swelling - there's visible bruising to my eye at least.
-
Try holding a rifle at arms length against ones neck to within half an inch without actually touching the skin, quite a feat. Now imagine trying to do that while semi conscious, in agony and choking on blood.
Had Sheila shot herself a second time her blood would have been on the tip of the rifle as it was held against an already bleeding neck. This would of course have resulted in blood smearing to the neck. Neither of which was evident which speaks for itself.
Clearly her killer had no difficulty positioning the rifle for the second shot as she lay head back after the initial failed shot.
SC's gsw's were described as "loose contact".
The pathologists at trial, Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight, said it was impossible to say with any certainty the effects of the first gsw ie whether or not she was stunned, felt any pain etc.
Prof Knight said there's a momentary delay in blood presenting from gsw's as per post above. Therefore the muzzle of the rifle may have avoided blood from SC's gsw's if it moved immediately after the trigger was pulled.
-
Desperate people do shoot themselves and sometimes they make such a hash of it that a second bullet is needed to finish the job. In every occasion however the initial shot resulted in a non critical superficial wound which wasn't what occurred with Sheila Caffell.
Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight told the jury it was possible SC shot herself twice.
-
Well, I hope your sleep wasn't unduly disturbed! The Smears!! There are finite -reasonable!!- possibilities. If we examine the extremities attached to the torso, the head is by far the heaviest -I once knew the ratio but I've forgotten it- and I'm quite convinced that the effect of the first shot -the physical shock of shattered vertebrae- would have been likely to have knocked it off it's perch, so to speak. It may have only slipped to the side but it's own weight would have forced it forward, possibly in a rolling motion? smearing the blood in the crease. It would have been necessary to lift it from that position to expose the area for the second shot. It seems to me that the obvious lifting point would be the chin -the head being dead weight, this couldn't have been accomplished with one finger- fingers coming into contact with the original wound would cause smears.
The first gsw caused a laceration to the external jagular which Dr Vanezis described as "more superficial" and lying in muscle.
-
I probably picked it up from my mum listening to Diddy David Hamilton on Radio 2 8)><( Is this part of your BDSM fantasy?
Nahh... Suzi Quatro is too masculine and can't sing, unlike my new girlfriend, lovely Ana Moura.
-
The first gsw caused a laceration to the external jagular which Dr Vanezis described as "more superficial" and lying in muscle.
u need fixing
-
Well as I said according to Prof Knight there's a momentary delay in blood presenting. Assuming this was the case here, the rifle (with or without silencer) was already out of the way based on soc image. So much for 'drawback' &%+((£
Based on the pathological evidence SC was incapable of voluntary movement after the second immediately fatal gsw so would not have been capable of putting her hand up to the second wound. Maybe after the first gsw she put her finger(s)/hand to the wound and transferred it to the second wound to identify the site. This seems unlikely as I would expect to see a correpsonding smear elsewhere and I can't see one.
SC's found location doesn't look right to me. Why would her head fall to the left of the cabinet? Surely it would fall straight back and end up wedged between her neck and the cabinet? I think she was nearer the connecting door and moved by the raid team in their haste to check behind that door.
The bloodstaining to the left (as I look at the image) looks to me as though it has dried and then cracked as the skin has expanded due to swelling - there's visible bruising to my eye at least.
The rifle was staged to make it look like suicide, therefore not surprising that the muzzle was poorly positioned away from her neck in attempting to make the rest of it balance on her body without falling off.
I agree the first wound hadn't been touched by SC, neither could the second. So someone or something else was responsible.
-
Nahh... Suzi Quatro is too masculine and can't sing, unlike my new girlfriend, lovely Ana Moura.
Sounds like something to listen to sipping a bottle of Mateus 8((()*/
-
u need fixing
Oh no what now? Have I got laying and lying the wrong way round?
-
The rifle was staged to make it look like suicide, therefore not surprising that the muzzle was poorly positioned away from her neck in attempting to make the rest of it balance on her body without falling off.
I agree the first wound hadn't been touched by SC, neither could the second. So someone or something else was responsible.
But how would we know how the rifle would fall without viewing numerous images of sucide victims by gsw's?
No doubt a ballistics and bloodstain analyst could shed light on the matter. The so-called expert evidence at trial was truly appalling in this regard.
-
Sounds like something to listen to sipping a bottle of Mateus 8((()*/
Yep... they'd both taste good together.
-
But how would we know how the rifle would fall without viewing numerous images of sucide victims by gsw's?
No doubt a ballistics and bloodstain analyst could shed light on the matter. The so-called expert evidence at trial was truly appalling in this regard.
Not one iota as appalling as the ludicrous assumption by one or two ijuts on blue that Sheila's hand was cut, gouged or bleeding, when it's so obvious that they are simply dried up and disturbed streams of blood which came from her neck wounds. Dr Vanezis is no fool.
-
Not one iota as appalling as the ludicrous assumption by one or two ijuts on blue that Sheila's hand was cut, gouged or bleeding, when it's so obvious that they are simply dried up and disturbed streams of blood which came from her neck wounds. Dr Vanezis is no fool.
I don't think I've seen the images under discussion but I think its most unlikely SC sustained any wounds not noted on the autopsy report:
- Why would Dr Vanezis note all manner of minor points such as stretch marks and nicotine stains and overlook cuts, gouges etc? He even noted the dressed abrasion on SC's abdomen.
- As Caroline has pointed out Dr Vanezis didn't make note of any cuts, gouges in his autopsy notes written during post mortem which kind of puts paid to Roch's theory that Dr Vanezis changed his autopsy to suit DCI Ainsley. Why on earth would Dr Vanezis sing to DCI Ainsley's tune in any event? If such a request was ever put to Dr Vanezis I've no doubt he would report him/her.
- Numerous officers at soc observed SC along with Dr Craig. 6 police officers attended post mortem. Prof Knight for the defence had access to all autopsy images.
- There's no evidence any of the victims engaged in hand-to-hand fighting. SC was stood at the foot of the bed in the master bedroom and shot June whilst she was in bed and getting out of either 5 or 6 times (6th wound may have been graze only). NB appeared on the landing and SC turned her attention to him shooing NB twice in the face. NB turned and SC followed shooting NB twice on the main staircase leading to the hall. The pair ended up in the kitchen with NB severely injured and unable to defend himself. SC beat NB with the rifle and shot him a further four times. Meanwhile June moved around the bed, in an attempt to use the phone maybe, and was back at the main door when SC shot her twice in the head. All the pathological and physical evidence at soc supports this.
-
The first gsw caused a laceration to the external jagular which Dr Vanezis described as "more superficial" and lying in muscle.
Do you drive a Juguar?
-
You'll come round eventually, Ms G... as they all do in the end. 8((()*/
-
Do you drive a Juguar?
I knew it didn't look right and even looked it up 8)><( Well this must mean I got laying right.
I once had a boyfriend who was a design eng for Jaguar cars &%+((£ I don't really like them but I like the Telsa S which looks like a Jag. Does anyone have any experience of electric cars? Whoops seriously off-topic.
-
I knew it didn't look right and even looked it up 8)><( Well this must mean I got laying right.
I once had a boyfriend who was a design eng for Jaguar cars &%+((£ I don't really like them but I like the Telsa S which looks like a Jag. Does anyone have any experience of electric cars? Whoops seriously off-topic.
Tesla 8((()*/
Experience?... yeah, loads with Scalextric.
-
I don't think I've seen the images under discussion but I think its most unlikely SC sustained any wounds not noted on the autopsy report:
- Why would Dr Vanezis note all manner of minor points such as stretch marks and nicotine stains and overlook cuts, gouges etc? He even noted the dressed abrasion on SC's abdomen.
- As Caroline has pointed out Dr Vanezis didn't make note of any cuts, gouges in his autopsy notes written during post mortem which kind of puts paid to Roch's theory that Dr Vanezis changed his autopsy to suit DCI Ainsley. Why on earth would Dr Vanezis sing to DCI Ainsley's tune in any event? If such a request was ever put to Dr Vanezis I've no doubt he would report him/her.
- Numerous officers at soc observed SC along with Dr Craig. 6 police officers attended post mortem. Prof Knight for the defence had access to all autopsy images.
- There's no evidence any of the victims engaged in hand-to-hand fighting. SC was stood at the foot of the bed in the master bedroom and shot June whilst she was in bed and getting out of either 5 or 6 times (6th wound may have been graze only). NB appeared on the landing and SC turned her attention to him shooing NB twice in the face. NB turned and SC followed shooting NB twice on the main staircase leading to the hall. The pair ended up in the kitchen with NB severely injured and unable to defend himself. SC beat NB with the rifle and shot him a further four times. Meanwhile June moved around the bed, in an attempt to use the phone maybe, and was back at the main door when SC shot her twice in the head. All the pathological and physical evidence at soc supports this.
Can anyone think of a case in the UK where a pathologist has effectively deliberately altered the pathological evidence to bolster the prosecutions case? Putting aside the immorality of such behaviour, which would hopefully be a hurdle too high for 99.9% of pathologists, if a pathologist was found guilty of what would amount to perverting the course of justice he/she would face a very lengthy prison sentence.
-
Can anyone think of a case in the UK where a pathologist has effectively deliberately altered the pathological evidence to bolster the prosecutions case? Putting aside the immorality of such behaviour, which would hopefully be a hurdle too high for 99.9% of pathologists, if a pathologist was found guilty of what would amount to perverting the course of justice he/she would face a very lengthy prison sentence.
Only the Blue Meanies need concern themselves with baloney like that, Holly... and one or two from the nether regions of the world who think every loser in jail is a miscarriage of justice.
-
Can anyone think of a case in the UK where a pathologist has effectively deliberately altered the pathological evidence to bolster the prosecutions case? Putting aside the immorality of such behaviour, which would hopefully be a hurdle too high for 99.9% of pathologists, if a pathologist was found guilty of what would amount to perverting the course of justice he/she would face a very lengthy prison sentence.
I assume a pathologist would be struck off if caught giving false evidence.
-
Only the Blue Meanies need concern themselves with baloney like that, Holly... and one or two from the nether regions of the world who think every loser in jail is a miscarriage of justice.
Incompetence and negligence are one thing (not that I'm suggesting Dr Vanezis was necessarily either) deliberately altering evidence to bolster the prosecutions case is something quite different.
In the case of Ian Tomlinson it appears Dr Patel was incompetent and negligent as opposed to anything more sinister. He was struck off and seems a world away from Dr Vanezis:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson
-
I assume a pathologist would be struck off if caught giving false evidence.
I assume so yes. Afaik Dr Vanezis is known internationally and has an unblemished record.
http://www.petervanezis.com/
-
Now David thinks his research renders Prof Knight's opinion obsolete. Lol you couldn't make it up @)(++(*
David what makes you think you can generalise about GSW's? Surely calibre of firearm, ammo, wound site(s) and many other factors eg an individuals constitution make all cases unique?
If you're saying 5 - 10 secs survival after multiple GSW's how do you account for post GSW movement by June and NB?
-
Now David thinks his research renders Prof Knight's opinion obsolete. Lol you couldn't make it up @)(++(*
David what makes you think you can generalise about GSW's? Surely calibre of firearm, ammo, wound site(s) and many other factors eg an individuals constitution make all cases unique?
If you're saying 5 - 10 secs survival after multiple GSW's how do you account for post GSW movement by June and NB?
Apparently, he also missed (didn't notice) the cuts to Sheila's arm/hand even though he went into great detail about those on Nevill and mentioned old injuries on Sheila. No you couldn't make this up! @)(++(*
-
I assume so yes. Afaik Dr Vanezis is known internationally and has an unblemished record.
http://www.petervanezis.com/
Pathologists, and other such professionals, obviously train long and hard and to deviate from their 'code of practice' would go against everything they have trained for and represent. Obviously one can never say never eg Harold Shipman!
-
Pathologists, and other such professionals, obviously train long and hard and to deviate from their 'code of practice' would go against everything they have trained for and represent. Obviously one can never say never eg Harold Shipman!
They seem to work on the assumption that because it's all happened before, in this case, it's all, without question, happened again....................but offer no feasible explanation why.
-
Pathologists, and other such professionals, obviously train long and hard and to deviate from their 'code of practice' would go against everything they have trained for and represent. Obviously one can never say never eg Harold Shipman!
Pathologists will make mistakes. But to examine a whole body & not see scratches would not be one of them.
-
Apparently, he also missed (didn't notice) the cuts to Sheila's arm/hand even though he went into great detail about those on Nevill and mentioned old injuries on Sheila. No you couldn't make this up! @)(++(*
I'm not sure exactly what is being claimed? I've read 27 'marks' (cuts, gouges and scratches) and 70?! Do the claims relate to SC only or other victims? Are these so-called marks outside or underneath victims' nightwear?
It just doesn't make any sense to me how these marks could fall under the radar for 3 decades along with Dr Vanezis perjuring himself and numerous others, including Dr Craig and Prof Knight who both supported the defence, effectively overlooking or turning a blind eye!
-
They seem to work on the assumption that because it's all happened before, in this case, it's all, without question, happened again....................but offer no feasible explanation why.
I can buy into the silencer fabricted and JM coerced and that's about it. Either the silencer was fabricated or JB is guilty. The idea that multiple others plotted against JB, *a country bumpkin, just doesn't ring true with me.
*By this I mean he wasn't a threat in any shape or form to the government eg a Julian Assange or Bradley/Chelsea Manning type figure so why would the state conspire on a grand scale to convict an innocent man?
-
"This life's dim windows of the soul.
Distorts the heavens from pole to pole.
And leads you to believe a lie.
When you see with, not through, the eye"
William Blake's pithy aphorism is so fitting for those who see what isn't there.
-
It works both ways though as it is often claimed JB is a psychopath and yet we have no name to put to any professional making such a diagnosis.
A recent post on Blue:
Thanks Jackie, I could probably write you a similar list about Bamber, but, you wouldn't want to believe that list. I will start you off, do you believe what the defence psychiatrist said, "if ever there was a psychopath it's Jeremy Bamber". Do you believe what the psychopath said who worked at full Sutton, he's 100% guilty as hell.
He has professed his innocence ever since. However, the psychiatrist engaged by Bamber’s defence team said that his very real belief that he had not committed the murders was a prime reason for diagnosing him as a psychopath.
Concluding that he did kill his family and had suppressed the knowledge until it no longer existed, he added: ‘If ever there was a psychopath, it’s Jeremy Bamber.’
1. Who was the defence psychiatrist who made this assessment? Without the name of an appropriately qualified person it is meaningless.
2. Who was the "psychopath" who made the assessment at Full Sutton? (I assume the poster meant psychiatrist). Again without the name of an appropriately qualified person it is meaningless.
3. I struggle with a qualified person using language like "he's guilty as hell". Sounds more like the sort of language a layperson would use. In fact DB used these very words:
http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/5034503.Jeremy_Bamber_is__as_guilty_as_hell__says_his_cousin/
4. A psychiatrist diagnosing a defendent/prisoner as a psychopath on the basis of protesting their innocence reminds me of the case of Stefan Kiszko:
"One forensic psychiatrist made a note of Kiszko suffering from "delusions of innocence"." Although again no name of the forensic psychiatrist in the following link. I will endeavour to find it elsewhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed#Life_inside
-
And David no idea why you keep quoting Prof Knight who published an article pre JB's trial stating women almost never use firearms to commit suicide or words to this effect as though it is relevant to JB's case? Most adult women don't suffer mental illness and those that do will in the main not visit family homes where firearms and ammunition are accessible. It would probably take an actuary to apply statistical meaning to Prof Knight's statement in the context of JB's case, a fact JB's defence may not have addressed.
If I said in the 1950's most car accidents involved male drivers would this mean female drivers were better drivers etc? No it would mean most drivers were male therefore stastically they had more accidents as they spent more time on roads behind the wheels.
-
Jan and Steve_uk regular contributors to the Blue forum completely oblivious to JB's blood group:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=260.0;attach=844
Steve_uk see me for some detention and punishment 8)--))
Jan you need to up your game otherwise you will remain on the bench 8)--))
Seriously do you guys read the docs? You've both made in excess of 8k posts and no idea of JB's blood group.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8537.msg407603.html#msg407603
-
And David no idea why you keep quoting Prof Knight who published an article pre JB's trial stating women almost never use firearms to commit suicide or words to this effect as though it is relevant to JB's case? Most adult women don't suffer mental illness and those that do will in the main not visit family homes where firearms and ammunition are accessible. It would probably take an actuary to apply statistical meaning to Prof Knight's statement in the context of JB's case, a fact JB's defence may not have addressed.
If I said in the 1950's most car accidents involved male drivers would this mean female drivers were better drivers etc? No it would mean most drivers were male therefore stastically they had more accidents as they spent more time on roads behind the wheels.
I blame Harry Enfield. 8()(((@#
-
Jan and Steve_uk regular contributors to the Blue forum completely oblivious to JB's blood group:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=260.0;attach=844 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=260.0;attach=844)
Steve_uk see me for some detention and punishment 8)--))
Jan you need to up your game otherwise you will remain on the bench 8)--))
Seriously do you guys read the docs? You've both made in excess of 8k posts and no idea of JB's blood group.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8537.msg407603.html#msg407603 (http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8537.msg407603.html#msg407603)
Is watching blue implode better than enjoying wimmins' footy? 8(*(
-
Is watching blue implode better than enjoying wimmins' footy? 8(*(
Had more satisfaction listening to Martin van Beynen's recent podcast series on the Bain murders. Hard going and would be better transcribed to read, but...
http://stuff.libsyn.com/ (http://stuff.libsyn.com/)
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/93827727/martin-van-beynen-why-the-david-bain-story-needed-to-be-told-one-more-time (https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/93827727/martin-van-beynen-why-the-david-bain-story-needed-to-be-told-one-more-time)
-
Is watching blue implode better than enjoying wimmins' footy? 8(*(
There's no comparison. The wimmins football is sublime and thankfully very few tatoos in sight! England play Portugal this eve ko 7.45pm Ch4.
-
STOP PRESS:
I am sitting on new information which establishes Jeremy Bambers innocence beyond doubt!!!
Stay tuned in, because by tomorrow all will be revealed...
Goodnight, everybody..
@)(++(*
-
That must be one of his shortest ever posts!
But hey... desperate measures are needed to stop the old tumbril rattling its way to the guillotine.
-
Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight told the jury it was possible SC shot herself twice.
Expert speak for not impossible. But highly improbable all the same.
-
Expert speak for not impossible. But highly improbable all the same.
As far as I can see Dr Vanezis was resolute during his trial testimony stating it was impossible to conclude from the pathological evidence whether SC took her own life or she was murdered.
Prof Knight at trial:
Sheila is the only shooting of the whole 5 where the bullets have gone upwards. Now to shoot upwards obviously one must put the gun under the chin with the butt down there at the bottom. For a third party to do this seems rather extroidinary, to shoot upwards through the throat, because he would have to hold the gun under her neck when she is obviously upright because of the blood splashing, and although it is not impossible it seems a strange thing to happen. As I say it is the only death of the five where the wounds went upwards and not downwards or straight through. So, I think it would be difficult for someone else to do this without her objecting.
The following is an extract from the CoA:
467. The next feature of Mr Webster's evidence which left us unimpressed was the way in which he criticised Mr Hayward for assessing the chance that the blood was not a mixture as being a remote chance. He said that a remote chance was equivalent to the chance that he might be struck by lightning as he left the court building. We think that that was to suggest something far less likely than that which Mr Hayward had sort to convey to the jury. Forensic scientists are used to putting probabilities on a scale that a jury can understand. At one end of the scale is a very strong chance, at the other a remote chance. To suggest that it was giving the chance as being so unlikely that it could effectively be discounted is to distort what Mr Hayward was saying. Mr Webster's own assessment of the chance as a "real" chance is unhelpful. Whether there is a very strong chance of something happening or a remote chance of it happening, it is a real chance. A real chance does nothing to assess the likelihood of something happening in a way that a jury could properly understand.
As you will see the appeal court judges state "Forensic scientists are used to putting probabilities on a scale that a jury can understand." No such probabilities were given by Dr Vanezis or Prof Knight.
From Dr DiMaio - pathologist with expertise in gunshot wounds:
Suicides in which multiple gunshot wounds are present are uncommon, but
not rare. These wounds may involve only one area, e.g., the head, or multiple
areas, such as the head and chest. Multiple gunshot wounds confined exclusively
to the head are the least common, whereas those of the chest are the
most common. A lack of knowledge of anatomy, flinching at the time the
trigger is pulled, defective ammunition, ammunition of the wrong caliber,
or just missing a vital organ, account for such multiple wounds.Occasionally,
individuals have shot themselves simultaneously in the head with two different
weapons (Figure 14.10).
Wounds that may appear to be fatal on initial examination may not be
so on autopsy. Thus, in an individual who shot himself four times in the
chest and once in the head with a .22-caliber pistol, one would assume that
the head wound was the fatal shot. However, the autopsy revealed that the
bullet flattened out against the frontal bone, and death was due to one of the
four gunshot wounds of the chest, with one bullet going through the heart.
The largest number of gunshot wounds in a suicide that the author is
aware of is nine.5 The weapon was a nine-shot .22-caliber revolver. All nine
bullets entered the chest, with one perforating a vital organ, the left lung,
causing massive hemorrhage, hemothorax, and death.
-
But that court testimony is false. The first bullet to Sheila was delivered almost perpendicular to her neck, therefore not upwards!
-
But that court testimony is false. The first bullet to Sheila was delivered almost perpendicular to her neck, therefore not upwards!
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=205.0;attach=730
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=205.0;attach=732
According to Dr Vanezis the angle of the lower wound was slightly upwards from the horizontal by about 10 - 20 degrees with the neck in the neutral position.
-
Samson, you obviously have little, if any, understanding of those with a narcissistic personality intent on getting their hands on their family's wealth. Bamber's own defence team were advised that the memory of the terrible nature of what he'd done had been shoved to the back of his mind, then dropped off as if it never existed. Bamber and Bain... two peas out of the same pod imo.
Why is it that you constantly avoid all the other evidence and focus on only one particular part of the case, i.e. the "suicide" shot which is open to different interpretations, not just yours? There was nothing to stop David Bain sneaking out from behind the bay window and firing at close range whilst his father was engrossed in prayer with eyes shut and oblivious to anyone being present. Some killers just get lucky. Then we have the ejected bullet casing position nowhere near where it should have landed, and that mysterious self-balancing magazine case.
I thought "Black Hands" was a thorough expose of David Bain's involvement... well done, Martin van Beynen.
-
Samson, you obviously have little, if any, understanding of those with a narcissistic personality intent on getting their hands on their family's wealth. Bamber's own defence team were advised that the memory of the terrible nature of what he'd done had been shoved to the back of his mind, then dropped off as if it never existed. Bamber and Bain... two peas out of the same pod imo.
Why is it that you constantly avoid all the other evidence and focus on only one particular part of the case, i.e. the "suicide" shot which is open to different interpretations, not just yours? There was nothing to stop David Bain sneaking out from behind the bay window and firing at close range whilst his father was engrossed in prayer with eyes shut and oblivious to anyone being present. Some killers just get lucky. Then we have the ejected bullet casing position nowhere near where it should have landed, and that mysterious self-balancing magazine case.
I thought "Black Hands" was a thorough expose of David Bain's involvement... well done, Martin van Beynen.
The only source for the above is author Roger Wilkes. Completely unreliable imo. No name for the mystery psychologist or members of JB's defence involved in this alleged conversation. In the same way I can't see Dr Vanezis overlooking numerous marks on the victims, I can't see JB's defence sitting around gossiping with book authors, especially given the high profile and contentious nature of the case and the fact JB has always protested his innocence and continually looked for ways to appeal his sentence.
-
The only source for the above is author Roger Wilkes. Completely unreliable imo. No name for the mystery psychologist or members of JB's defence involved in this alleged conversation. In the same way I can't see Dr Vanezis overlooking numerous marks on the victims, I can't see JB's defence sitting around gossiping with book authors, especially given the high profile and contentious nature of the case and the fact JB has always protested his innocence and continually looked for ways to appeal his sentence.
So by that same token CAL is also unreliable when she recalled Sheila's best friend, Tora Tomkinson, saying -"I just knew she couldn't have done it!", or in interviewing Vanezis, Fletcher and Ainsley, 30 years later.
It was a case conference on the eve of trial, which included an eminent psychiatrist (who probably did not wish to be named in the book) in the presence of Geoffrey Rivlin, Ed Lawson, et al.
-
Explain David Bain's blood-soaked opera gloves hidden under Stephen's bed, Holly. Surely you don't think Bain senior would actually go to the trouble of searching for and wearing them to prevent fingerprints, if he intended to commit suicide?!!!
Or Bain's various fits which first responders to the scene and even his jailer friend later noted and dismissed as fake. Listen to the Episode Four video of Graeme Stanley recalling his odd behaviour...
https://interactives.stuff.co.nz/blackhands/evidence/ (https://interactives.stuff.co.nz/blackhands/evidence/)
Given the rifle belonged to DB why would he worry about fingerprints if he was the perp? Why would he choose white opera gloves? He had an early morning paper round and the murders occured during the winter months so I'm assuming he had winter gloves? Were the gloves checked for gsr and other debris? Were the gloves "hidden"? The blood stains are described as "smears" so maybe RB picked them up to wipe something?
I'll listen to the "odd behaviour" later but I see the same thing in all these cases and I don't consider it evidence of anything. Blimey if I found myself charged with some crime I can hear it all now. "She was a bit odd...she called herself Naughty Nun on an internet forum dedicated to debating the case of Jeremy Bamber. Then she was banned and reinvented herself as Holly Goodhead on another forum where she spent hours posting about Jeremy Bamber. She was adopted too! Says it all really. Must be guilty. I only wish we could find a way of circumventing the legal process. We all know she's guilty and it would save the state thousands of pounds". 8(8-))
-
So by that same token CAL is also unreliable when she recalled Sheila's best friend, Tora Tomkinson, saying -"I just knew she couldn't have done it!", or in interviewing Vanezis, Fletcher and Ainsley, 30 years later.
It was a case conference on the eve of trial, which included an eminent psychiatrist (who probably did not wish to be named in the book) in the presence of Geoffrey Rivlin, Ed Lawson, et al.
No because CAL has quoted all sources and if she was found misquoting then potentially those misquoted could sue her/publishers.
So we are told but would Rivlin and Lawson relay this to Roger Wilkes circa 1994 knowing JB was appealing his sentence? (Around this time JB was represented by David Martin Sperry, Isabelle Gillard and Ewen Smith). If they did where's the evidence the "eminent psychiatrist" actually met with JB to carry out a formal assessment?
-
The only source for the above is author Roger Wilkes. Completely unreliable imo. No name for the mystery psychologist or members of JB's defence involved in this alleged conversation. In the same way I can't see Dr Vanezis overlooking numerous marks on the victims, I can't see JB's defence sitting around gossiping with book authors, especially given the high profile and contentious nature of the case and the fact JB has always protested his innocence and continually looked for ways to appeal his sentence.
Also thinking about it, as far as I can recall, none of the other authors: CAL, CC, Claire Powell or Scott Lomax have been granted interviews with past or present members of JB's defence? Or the prosecution? Or any member of the judiciary eg judge. It just doesn't ring true that these people would sit around gossiping with light weight book authors.
PH claimed a chance meeting with the late Ed Lawson but as it happened all PH's interviews/meetings took place between the contributors passing away and publication 8)-))) 8(0(*
-
Please note that all posts referring to the Bain family murders have been moved to its own thread.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8397.msg418259#msg418259