J B Campaign Ltd - Much Ado About Nothing...

[adam]

The police have never denied moving her arm a few inches. There are photos showing this.

Mike is saying that Sheila was moved from the bed. He said about a year ago that the pictures of Sheila on the bed are with his legal advisors. At first he said Sheila was moved off the bed because the police were looking for the rifle. Now he says they were looking for bullet casings.

Mike also says the police shot Sheila. I assume she landed on the bed, with or without the rifle. The police took the (so far) unpublished pictures of her on the bed,  before deciding to move Sheila onto the floor and put a rifle on top of her. These apparently made better pictures.

The police then changed their minds again a month later and decided to frame Bamber.

[david1819]

You're not thinking logically, David. The photos show that the body was moved between frames, not before any pictures were taken.

Secondly, it has been moved by about half a foot and that would have taken a good deal of effort. It would not be like just accidentally catching the bible with your foot or something like that.

I have noticed that a number of astute observers agree. Clive Wismayer at Injustice Anywhere and Reader at Bamber forum to name a couple of them. Clive suggests that Bamber's defence, at the 2002 Appeal, missed a great opportunity to prove that the police moved Sheila's body.

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=162716&sid=c49300c968bec7d57e25ea427592ad63#p162716

Its difficult to explain, but hopefully the illustrations below will help people understand. Basicly both photos have been taken at different angels in different locations, not only that but the camera has been held at a different angle also.

This makes it impossible to compare anything because the photos are out of proportion to one another. A good way to demonstrate this is by looking at the blood stains on the carpet.

What I have done is overlapped the photos, one is inverted to make it easy to see. In photo 1 I have matched three blood stains overlapping them they are surround in yellow a circle, however when I match these blood stains it does not correspond with the rest of blood stains. See image 2 I then match the blood stains below the socks and as a result the other blood stains are not aligned anymore! notice the socks also.

Then finally in image 3 I match a corner of the sock and a small bloodstain to the left of the sock and as expect the rest of the image does not correspond just like 1 and 2. I have tried this with the rifle and her legs also its impossible to align anything. But the blood stains are significant to this because they cannot be moved or altered. Also I have noticed the further away the objects you want to compare the more further apart they are relative to each photo. That explains why I can only match blood drops in close proximity. Does this make sense?

[Harry]

Its difficult to explain, but hopefully the illustrations below will help people understand. Basicly both photos have been taken at different angels in different locations, not only that but the camera has been held at a different angle also.

This makes it impossible to compare anything because the photos are out of proportion to one another. A good way to demonstrate this is by looking at the blood stains on the carpet.

What I have done is overlapped the photos, one is inverted to make it easy to see. In photo 1 I have matched three blood stains overlapping them they are surround in yellow a circle, however when I match these blood stains it does not correspond with the rest of blood stains. See image 2 I then match the blood stains below the socks and as a result the other blood stains are not aligned anymore! notice the socks also.

Then finally in image 3 I match a corner of the sock and a small bloodstain to the left of the sock and as expect the rest of the image does not correspond just like 1 and 2. I have tried this with the rifle and her legs also its impossible to align anything. But the blood stains are significant to this because they cannot be moved or altered. Also I have noticed the further away the objects you want to compare the more further apart they are relative to each photo. That explains why I can only match blood drops in close proximity. Does this make sense?

The issue has nothing to do with matching the photographs. There is no point in trying to overlap them.



It's obvious that the body has been pulled along by about six inches to the right.  Sheila's right knee is further to the right of the socks in the photo on the right. You can tell the change by using landmarks which have not changed in both photographs. The socks and the blood spots are in the same position, but the body and the bible have been moved to the right.

Here's what Reader has to say on it. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5797.msg263178.html#msg263178


"Look carefully at the pale area (a small rug apparently) which the socks partially cover. This pale area is identically positioned in the two images in relation to bloodspots on the adjacent carpet. Now consider the position of Sheila's right thigh in relation to that area. In particular, imagine a line drawn along the right edge of the pale area in each image. In the left image, the line would meet Sheila's leg just above the knee. In the right image, the line would meet Sheila's leg several inches further from the knee. It follows that Sheila's right thigh is several inches further to the left in the first image in relation to the carpet. It is impossible for Sheila's right thigh to have moved several inches without the rest of the body having moved as well. This can't be accounted for by the different camera position."

[scipio_usmc]

The issue has nothing to do with matching the photographs. There is no point in trying to overlap them.



It's obvious that the body has been pulled along by about six inches to the right.  Sheila's right knee is further to the right of the socks in the photo on the right. You can tell the change by using landmarks which have not changed in both photographs. The socks and the blood spots are in the same position, but the body and the bible have been moved to the right.

Here's what Reader has to say on it. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5797.msg263178.html#msg263178


"Look carefully at the pale area (a small rug apparently) which the socks partially cover. This pale area is identically positioned in the two images in relation to bloodspots on the adjacent carpet. Now consider the position of Sheila's right thigh in relation to that area. In particular, imagine a line drawn along the right edge of the pale area in each image. In the left image, the line would meet Sheila's leg just above the knee. In the right image, the line would meet Sheila's leg several inches further from the knee. It follows that Sheila's right thigh is several inches further to the left in the first image in relation to the carpet. It is impossible for Sheila's right thigh to have moved several inches without the rest of the body having moved as well. This can't be accounted for by the different camera position."

It is just a matter of the photos taken at different angles and distances thus her thighs etc are bigger in some than in others and the different angle only makes things even more distorted.  I just saw an auction on ebay for 2 Parker pens.  In one photo 1 looked markedly smaller than the other pen. Yet in other photos they were equal and in yet others it was the other pen that looked smaller.  I scour ebay looking for the smaller pens because I collect the rare smaller ones.  You could be fooled into thinking 1 is a rare small version if you are not careful. his kind of trickery is what has you fooled. Her dress looks different when photographed from her head area than from her feet area. It is all about perspective.

That is why photographers can make ugly people look hot. While some people complain about online dates who fooled them using old photos some get fooled by simply photos that are naturally deceiving.  A classmate had this photo where he looked awesome I didn't even know it was him at first I though the was using a photo of someone else. A coworker had this photo on her desk of a woman who had a beautiful face. I had other guys look at it and then she showed up and wanted to know what we were doing. I said she is beautiful who is she and is she single. She replied it is me you idiot. I said oh how long ago was it and she said 3 years. Then I shut up rather than get in more hot water.

[adam]

Mike says the police shot Sheila and then stage managed her body on the floor. After a photographer had taken pictures of her on the bed.

I don't know which police did this. Obviously not Jones or Bews, who were both keen for Bamber to be investigated early on. Although both these police were at WHF so must have either been involved in the staging, or knew what was happening.

Everyone apart from a couple of relatives accepted murder/suicide. So I don't know why the police decided to frame Bamber a month later.

[Holly Goodhead]

Mike says the police shot Sheila and then stage managed her body on the floor. After a photographer had taken pictures of her on the bed.

I don't know which police did this. Obviously not Jones or Bews, who were both keen for Bamber to be investigated early on. Although both these police were at WHF so must have either been involved in the staging, or knew what was happening.

Everyone apart from a couple of relatives accepted murder/suicide. So I don't know why the police decided to frame Bamber a month later.

Mike needs to explain how Dr Craig, police surgeon with 30 years experience at the time of the tragedy at WHF, arrived at the following conclusion.  His conclusion contradicts the arguments put forward by MT and CT that SC was seen in the kitchen shortly before the raid team broke in and she then took her own life and/or police shot SC and staged her body.

38. At 8.10 a.m., Dr Craig attended the scene to formally certify the deaths. In cross-examination at the trial he said the deaths could have occurred at any time during the previous night. The appearance of Sheila Caffell's body suggested to him that the wounds had been inflicted by her own hand. In answer to the judge the witness made it clear this was not an opinion the jury should rely upon as a true indication that the injuries had been self-inflicted.

I know who I find the most reliable     

[Holly Goodhead]

The issue has nothing to do with matching the photographs. There is no point in trying to overlap them.



It's obvious that the body has been pulled along by about six inches to the right.  Sheila's right knee is further to the right of the socks in the photo on the right. You can tell the change by using landmarks which have not changed in both photographs. The socks and the blood spots are in the same position, but the body and the bible have been moved to the right.

Here's what Reader has to say on it. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5797.msg263178.html#msg263178


"Look carefully at the pale area (a small rug apparently) which the socks partially cover. This pale area is identically positioned in the two images in relation to bloodspots on the adjacent carpet. Now consider the position of Sheila's right thigh in relation to that area. In particular, imagine a line drawn along the right edge of the pale area in each image. In the left image, the line would meet Sheila's leg just above the knee. In the right image, the line would meet Sheila's leg several inches further from the knee. It follows that Sheila's right thigh is several inches further to the left in the first image in relation to the carpet. It is impossible for Sheila's right thigh to have moved several inches without the rest of the body having moved as well. This can't be accounted for by the different camera position."

Hi Harry.  I thought you were new to the forum but I see you registered many moon ago.   

What is that sort of wooden thing running underneath the bed?  It sort of looks like a very old wooden ski with a metal binder?  Although I don't think it is.  SC looks to be in a different position measured against this between frames?  In the first frame the metal binder? looks to be parallel with her leg and in the second frame what looks like a metal binder is around her calf?

[Myster]

It's more likely to be a wooden (or even metal) part of the bed structure running along its full length. In the second frame it casts a long shadow which shows that it's raised above the floor and is obviously supporting either a single mattress or a base mattress of two. A piece of the chequered mattress or bedding fabric partially covers it in both photos.

[Holly Goodhead]

It's more likely to be a wooden (or even metal) part of the bed structure running along its full length. In the second frame it casts a long shadow which shows that it's raised above the floor and is obviously supporting either a single mattress or a base mattress of two. A piece of the chequered mattress or bedding fabric partially covers it in both photos.

Could it be some sort of drawer mechanism?  There looks to be some overlapping on both phtos?  In the second image there looks to be some depth with a black insert maybe a handle?  It's parallel with the end of SC's nightie?

[Myster]

Could it be some sort of drawer mechanism?  There looks to be some overlapping on both phtos?  In the second image there looks to be some depth with a black insert maybe a handle?  It's parallel with the end of SC's nightie?

No, it's just the side part of the bed frame, and some loose bedding/mattress material is covering a small section of it. You can see that it runs the whole length of the bed in the photo below...

[Holly Goodhead]

No, it's just the side part of the bed frame, and some loose bedding/mattress material is covering a small section of it. You can see that it runs the whole length of the bed in the photo below...

Yes it looks like a mattress on a bed stand but the photos are of such poor quality I think it's possible to see just about anything?

[Myster]

Yes it looks like a mattress on a bed stand but the photos are of such poor quality I think it's possible to see just about anything?

Not if you've got a hawk-eye like me! 

[APRIL]

It's more likely to be a wooden (or even metal) part of the bed structure running along its full length. In the second frame it casts a long shadow which shows that it's raised above the floor and is obviously supporting either a single mattress or a base mattress of two. A piece of the chequered mattress or bedding fabric partially covers it in both photos.

Oh!! Myster!!!!! You've just bought back an old memory!!!!!! My parents' bed was very old. I seem to recall a set of rather large, open springs surrounded by a wooden frame which had a metal part in the middle of the long sides which were held together with bolts. I can remember my father using a spanner? -it had a hole in the end which fitted round the bolt- to undo it. There was a feather mattress -or two- over the springs.

[Myster]

Oh!! Myster!!!!! You've just bought back an old memory!!!!!! My parents' bed was very old. I seem to recall a set of rather large, open springs surrounded by a wooden frame which had a metal part in the middle of the long sides which were held together with bolts. I can remember my father using a spanner? -it had a hole in the end which fitted round the bolt- to undo it. There was a feather mattress -or two- over the springs.

I know the type you mean, and assembled with a spanner like the ones below. When my grandmother's bed was disposed of I saved the metal framework, cut two lengths off it, painted them with red oxide and they now reinforce the front wooden driveway gates. Still going strong and rust free!

This is turning into an ancient Barry Bucknell DIY thread... better watch out for Holly's iron fist!!!

[APRIL]

I know the type you mean, and assembled with a spanner like the ones below. When my grandmother's bed was disposed of I saved the metal framework, cut two lengths off it, painted them with red oxide and they now reinforce the front wooden driveway gates. Still going strong and rust free!

This is turning into an ancient Barry Bucknell DIY thread... better watch out for Holly's iron fist!!!

Thank goodness you have those spanners with which to defend yourself.