Why do you keep assuming I make things up and don't look at the evidence? Only for me to prove you wrong over and over and over again?
I did not make that up the sources are below they come from the police themselves, not from my imagination that you like to believe.
I don't assume I know you make things up because I actually know how to read. What things actually state versus your mischaracterizations are never the same.
I already explained a dozen times how and why your claims are complete distortions. You chose not to rebut my points because you could not and instead just pretend I never posted any rebuttal because you would rather live in fantasyland than face reality.,
At least a dozen times here and on blue I pointed out to you that in the following Adams simply tells COLP to query other police about the state of Sheila's body:
I pointed out that COLP queried the people in question and they said the photos the crime scene police say they took before moving Sheiala's body accurately depict how her body was found by the raid team. You choose to IGNORE the testimony of the raid team and the crime scene officers in favor of Adams who admits his memory was foggy because 6 years had passed and thus said ask the others they woudl know better than him. Only a fool or someone out to intentionally lie would assert the above notes is absolute proof that her body was moved and that the above notes should be given to blood experts to use in assessing photos of her body. Are you a fool or intentionally distorting?
I have also pointed out numerous times to you how you totally mischaracterized Davidson's testimony. No where in his testimony did he claim to collect a weapon that had red paint on the barrel. The CID6 forms he filled out were even provided to him as exhibits so he could see what he collected from the scene on Aug 7-8. These forms are posted on blue. He simply said he heard that blood was on the barrel of a rifle found downstairs. What rifle did he find downstairs? He didn't find any rifle downstairs. The only rifle he collected was the murder weapon. The only other firearm they seized was a shotgun. They took the Anschutz and a shotgun. He didn't say anything about personally seeing a rifle downstairs let alone seeing a rifle that had red paint nor did he claim he personally took any rifle from downstairs. You thus MADE UP the claim that he said he personally saw a rifle with red paint on it. He said no such thing he said that he HEARD that there was paint on a rifle and that is why they took paint samples. Either 1) he heard people talking about paint on the moderator and assumed it was found on some other weapon or 2) back in 1985 he knew it was on the moderator but because this was 6 years he later he forgot and was thoroughly mixed up and could no longer remember accurately.
COLP completely discounted the notion there was some other weapon with red paint on it and recognized he was confused.
While they faced the evidence and fact he was wrong about there having been a weapon found downstairs with red paint you choose to ignore reality and pretend it was true and worse pretend he said he personally saw it though he claimed no such thing in the following:
You have the audacity to accuse me of making things up when you made up that Vanezis claim to CAL was a 'ridiculous' statement due to his rusty memory when in actual fact he made those very statements in court 29 years ago.
I didn't just accuse you I proved you made it up. All Adams said is to query the others and when COLP did so the others said the photos were accurate. Your claims totally fell apart under scrutiny. Likewise your claim that Davidson said he personally saw a rifle downstairs with red paint on it fell apart under scrutiny he said he heard someone found a rifle downstairs with red paint not that he personally found or saw it. Far from his saying he personally saw it he said he heard which amounts to hearsay. His hearsay was rejected by COLP because there is zero evidence to support it. No one saw or collected any rifle from downstairs the only rifle at the scene was the Anschutz and that was the only rifle the family owned. They had a pellet rifle but that is not a real firearm it is CO2 activated.
So your claims were totally untrue and either the product of extreme incompetence or intentional distortion which is the case?
As for Vanezis his claims to CAL were absurd and totally contrary to his trial testimony. At trial he testified the insides of her hands were free of blood when she arrived at the mortuary. Therefore his suggestion to CAL that maybe she had blood on the inside of her hands when she arrived at the mortuary but he washed such off is clearly wrong and the product of memory loss 26 years later. BUT EVEN WORSE, he told CAL maybe he meant in his autopsy report that the inside of her hands were free of blood after he washed them. That is absolutely ludicrous. What matters is whether she had blood before being washed. To say she was free of blood after being washed would be a totally ridiculous statement. I have never read a ME report that indicated any body part was clean after being washed. They always detail the condition before being washed because that is what is relevant. Anyone who fails to recognize such is either biased or a fool.
How dare I give the autopsy report its natural logical meaning which accords which his trial testimony. How dare I choose to accept his trial testimony which was given when things were still fresh in his mind instead of going with claims made 26 years later that conflict with his contemporaneous statements and are absurd. But I'm funny like that I am not controlled by bias I actually want the real facts so I don't pretend extra rifles were collected from WHF when they were not and don't pretend extra rifles had been present at WHF when they were not and don't pretend that Sheila's body was moved before the initial photos taken since there is no evidence to support the claim.
In contrast people who are biased and want to pretend that Sheila had blood inside her hand choose to ignore the contemporaneous evidence and instead rely upon a ridiculous claim that maybe Vanezis meant her inside hands were free of blood after being washed. People who are biased and want to pretend that police lied about paint being on the moderator say it was on a rifle downstairs on the basis of Davidson's hearsay even though there were no other rifles at the scene and all the testimony establishes it was on the moderator. Biased people who want to pretend police moved her body before the initial photos were taken will distort anything they can to pretend there is evidence of such though there is none. In the meantime such has nothing to do with reading the blood evidence.
The blood was dry by the time police entered. So even if police had moved her body it has no implications at all for reading the blood evidence. The blood proves Sheila was sitting propped up against something when shot. Had she been lying down the blood would not have leaked down her gown. After she died someone moved her causing the blood flow to change and causing a blood pool to form. The Bible was placed in such pool of blood.
Sheila was murdered end of story
Yes that is a big deal. Relying on experts that have only read second hand accounts and never had any hands on experience on the matter.
He didn't simply have second hand accounts he had handled gunshots before simply not as many as in America. This was given as an excuse for why he missed things she should have recognized like a problem with Sheila holding the gun at non-contact range at an odd angle to fire the first shot. While he missed things he should not have those things he recognized can't be discounted and are still supported today including that she was seated when shot because the blood evidence proves it. This doesn't undermine the testimony of the other experts at all. You just don't want to believe the evidence so make up any pathetic excuse you can to justify ignorign the evidence. That doesn't make you live on planet Earth it means you are controlled and consumed by bias and choose to live in an alternate reality.
I live on planet Earth actually. It was not Jeremy's lawyer it was his defending barrister Rivlin QC, he told the Jury
"There is not one single thing that Mr Bamber ever told her that she could only have got from him," he said. "In all that time they were together after the dreadful incident, you could expect that she would have heard one thing that only the murderer could have told her, but she didn't."
"That Matthew (Mac-Donald) story is not only wrong in itself, but contains in it a number of details which can be proved to be untrue and which she can only have got from the police or Ann Eaton"
A member of the Queen's Counsel is not going to make up baseless nonsense on the spot. As it goes he does not live far from me I wonder if I should try and pay him a visit? would be very interesting if he would be kind enough to give me the time to chat with him.
He represented Jeremy he was an advocate for Jeremy. QC is simply a title that entitles one to charge more money and wear a special robe. It doesn't make them advocates for the crown. Of course he tried to pretend Julie had no special knowledge because that would signify Jeremy's guilt and he was trying to get Jeremy acquitted. Only in your delusional World is is a surprise he made the claim.
Julie could not have gotten from the extended relatives that Jeremy was plotting to kill his family and frame Sheila. She could not have gotten from the family the notion he told her tonight is the night when they spoke around 11PM. She could not have gotten from the family that in his call after the murders that he told her he had not gone to bed yet and the plan was going well. The family certainly had no reason to tell her to make up a hitman story nor would she make such up. He didn't want her to know he was so heartless he personally killed the boys. The family could not have told her about the glove coming off. The family could not have told her about the drugs or robbery. Rivlin said what he said solely to try to get the jury to downplay what Julie said because what she said was so damning. He was Jeremy's advocate that was his job there is nothing surprising at all that he said such unless one lives in bizarro world.
