Sheila's time of death and why it is important.

[Holly Goodhead]

Myster:
Elastoplast.
It is a fact that lividity probably occurs, the fact it does not present with Sheila indeed can be swept under the carpet like all the other problems.
I am particularly interested in your pending post on Holly's 3 big reasons thread.

Waiting...
It's not beneath you I hope.

Elastoplast? 

[Myster]

Elastoplast?

Kiwi talk with forked tongue.  David1819's theory is more like a soggy bread poultice.

[Caroline]

They are not trained to do such.

Neither are you!

[scipio_usmc]

Once again you are cherry picking Dr Craig's words in order to deny Jeremy has an alibi. Shame on you.

Lets take a close look.

"In each case I certified death. There was no requirement for any physical examination to do this. My look at the bodies was not intensive."
Dr. Ian Craig ws 12/11/86

I could ask you again. How Dr Craig only noticed one gunshot wound and failed to noticed the other less than 2 inches away in plain sight. But i wont. Because you know the answer to this. But you can't post a straight answer without admitting that Dr Craig was paying no attention to the obvious manifestations of Sheila's body. Rendering his opinion on the time of death untrustworthy. Not like his own admittance above is not enough.

To cherry pick Dr Craig's words in the manner that you are is reckless and thoroughly unscientific.

I'm watching you.

Craig only referenced 1 wound on each victim that doesn't mean he only noticed 1 wound on each victim.  He referenced a wound capable of being fatal for the proposition they were all fatally shot.

[scipio_usmc]

They are not trained to do such. The lack of lividity in the crime scene photos shows they could have observed it if they looked or knew what to look for. But they did not.

Scipio and Caroline have argued that hypostasis does not always develop. However in this case it did. As its recorded in Vanezis autopsy carried out at 3pm the following afternoon. So far I have had no counter arguments to this.

My arguments for this have so far stood up to scrutiny. I cannot claim the proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false.I would welcome any evidence to prove this argument wrong. All you are doing is providing negative evidence from witnesses who were not even tasked or trained to do such observation. Hardly a strong argument. The absence of any mention of lividity by those at the scene on the 7th is for the exact same reason there is no mention of a silencer. - They cannot record something they never looked for nor contemplated looking for.




"The estimated time from death, known as post mortem interval
(PMI), is fundamental in many instances such as in criminal investigations,
because the finding may acquit or condemn a suspect,
as the data will be compared with the alibis provided by the people
under investigation. The estimated PMI in the first 6 h following
death has an error margin of at least 2 h, increasing to a margin of at
least 3 h in the next 14 h and to 4.5 h in the subsequent 10 h.1
The concentration of red cells in the vascular system result in a
reddish-purple color, which is called hypostasis 2-4 or livor mortis.
According to Dolinak et al. (2005), hypostasis begins to develop at
the moment of cardiac arrest, becoming perceptible after 3-4 h and
more obvious after 6-8 h, with full development in the skin
occurring after 10-12 h.4 Favero (1991), on the other hand, suggests
that the first signs of hypostasis occur within 10 min after death,
becoming obvious after 1-3 h and stabilizing after approximately
8-12 h."
Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine 38 (2016) 111-115

PML = Post Mortem Lividity

Your claims were demolished under scrutiny.  As always you refuse to accept facts and maintiant he smae nonsense no mater what.

Your claims were first of all demolished by me pointing out the photos are of insufficient quality to tell the extent of hypostasis.  That alone  completely and totally takes apart your bogus claim that from the photos it is possible to determine such.
 

Second hypostatis doesn't always develop and can be mild if it does.   What is one of the biggest things that inhibits such?  Hemorrhaging like Sheila suffered. All the autopsy stated is that hypostatis didn't conflict with the position her body was found in. It didn't declare she had extensive hypostatis let alone describe where all it said was it wasn't inconsistent with the position her body was found.  If there had been extensive hypostatis on her butt and entire back that would be inconsistent with her being found in the position she was because her butt should not have hypostasis because it was in heavy contact with the floor.

In your mind your nonsense is intact but in reality your claims have been dismantled.   

[david1819]

Your claims were first of all demolished by me pointing out the photos are of insufficient quality to tell the extent of hypostasis. 

You did not point out anything. You came up with an excuse.

Second hypostatis doesn't always develop and can be mild if it does.   What is one of the biggest things that inhibits such?  Hemorrhaging like Sheila suffered. All the autopsy stated is that hypostatis didn't conflict with the position her body was found in. It didn't declare she had extensive hypostatis let alone describe where all it said was it wasn't inconsistent with the position her body was found.  If there had been extensive hypostatis on her butt and entire back that would be inconsistent with her being found in the position she was because her butt should not have hypostasis because it was in heavy contact with the floor.

In your mind your nonsense is intact but in reality your claims have been dismantled.

Yawn. Heard this before.


This part of Sheila's autopsy has been attributed to the following literature

Conversely, the development of lividity may be delayed in persons with chronic anemia or massive terminal hemorrhage.

Why haemorrhage can delay or stop hypostasis and why it does not apply to Sheila

Haemorrhage is the discharge/escape of blood from the blood vessels. Post mortem hypostasis depends on blood pooling in the deceased according to the direction of gravity. If haemorrhage results in enough blood leaving the body it can effect the development and appearance of hypostasis.

Hypostasis is not always seen in a body and it may be absent in the young, the old and the clinically anaemic or in those who have died from severe blood loss.
Simpson's Forensic Medicine, 13th edition

It is the size of the wound that important but the amount of blood lost as a result of those wounds. Now lets compare Sheila's blood loss to those of other cases were hypostasis is mentioned

Comparative analysis no1

The death of David Kelly in 2003. Having cut his own wrists, he bled to death losing around 4-5 pints of blood. As a result you can see from the autopsy report examiners noted the hypostasis was weakly developed.   


Comparative analysis no2

Nicole Brown Simpson 1994, Having had her throat cut open hypostasis still developed and this played an important part of the case.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, yesterday, you were talking about--on direct examination, if I can find my--talking about Dr. Lakshmanan's testimony concerning, as he described it, a mottled area of ecchymosis along the right side of the back area of Nicole Brown Simpson. Do you recall talking about that in your direct examination?

DR. BADEN: Yes, I do.

MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, would it be accurate to say on your direct examination, you said, no. 1, in your opinion, that's not a shoeprint that is present there?

DR. BADEN: I said it's not an ecchymosis, it's not a bruise, no. 1. No. 2, it's not a shoeprint, but it's not even a bruise.

MR. KELBERG: And you said in fact that it was lividity although you didn't use the term "Lividity." Isn't that what you said?

DR. BADEN: Well, I said it was a form of lividity. That is, the postmortem settling of blood in the way the body settles after death, the blood settles after death depending on what the body is lying on.


Comparative analysis no3

last but not least lets compare Sheila to June. Based on the crime scene photos alone, The haemorrhages inflicted on June has allowed more blood to escape the body of June than that of Sheila. June having sustained 7 gunshots as opposed to Shelia's 2 gunshots wounds is the primary reason June has lose more significantly more blood than Sheila. Yet hypostasis is strongly developed in June but only just beginning to develop in Sheila. This leads back to my original conclusion that there is a disparity in the time of death. Thus the haemorrhage excuse is unfounded and baseless since the original theory is based on comparing Sheila to someone who has infact lost more blood as a result of her own haemorrhages caused by the same weapon.

In your mind my claims have been dismantled. But in reality my claims are not faltering.

[david1819]

Craig only referenced 1 wound on each victim that doesn't mean he only noticed 1 wound on each victim.  He referenced a wound capable of being fatal for the proposition they were all fatally shot.

Incredibly Dr Craig only noticed one of Sheila's wounds. Despite the other being in plain sight. Its this kind of poor observations from EP that prompts Mike to create his wild theories.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Holly Goodhead]

You did not point out anything. You came up with an excuse.

Yawn. Heard this before.


This part of Sheila's autopsy has been attributed to the following literature

Conversely, the development of lividity may be delayed in persons with chronic anemia or massive terminal hemorrhage.

Why haemorrhage can delay or stop hypostasis and why it does not apply to Sheila

Haemorrhage is the discharge/escape of blood from the blood vessels. Post mortem hypostasis depends on blood pooling in the deceased according to the direction of gravity. If haemorrhage results in enough blood leaving the body it can effect the development and appearance of hypostasis.

Hypostasis is not always seen in a body and it may be absent in the young, the old and the clinically anaemic or in those who have died from severe blood loss.
Simpson's Forensic Medicine, 13th edition

It is the size of the wound that important but the amount of blood lost as a result of those wounds. Now lets compare Sheila's blood loss to those of other cases were hypostasis is mentioned

Comparative analysis no1

The death of David Kelly in 2003. Having cut his own wrists, he bled to death losing around 4-5 pints of blood. As a result you can see from the autopsy report examiners noted the hypostasis was weakly developed.   


Comparative analysis no2

Nicole Brown Simpson 1994, Having had her throat cut open hypostasis still developed and this played an important part of the case.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, yesterday, you were talking about--on direct examination, if I can find my--talking about Dr. Lakshmanan's testimony concerning, as he described it, a mottled area of ecchymosis along the right side of the back area of Nicole Brown Simpson. Do you recall talking about that in your direct examination?

DR. BADEN: Yes, I do.

MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, would it be accurate to say on your direct examination, you said, no. 1, in your opinion, that's not a shoeprint that is present there?

DR. BADEN: I said it's not an ecchymosis, it's not a bruise, no. 1. No. 2, it's not a shoeprint, but it's not even a bruise.

MR. KELBERG: And you said in fact that it was lividity although you didn't use the term "Lividity." Isn't that what you said?

DR. BADEN: Well, I said it was a form of lividity. That is, the postmortem settling of blood in the way the body settles after death, the blood settles after death depending on what the body is lying on.


Comparative analysis no3

last but not least lets compare Sheila to June. Based on the crime scene photos alone, The haemorrhages inflicted on June has allowed more blood to escape the body of June than that of Sheila. June having sustained 7 gunshots as opposed to Shelia's 2 gunshots wounds is the primary reason June has lose more significantly more blood than Sheila. Yet hypostasis is strongly developed in June but only just beginning to develop in Sheila. This leads back to my original conclusion that there is a disparity in the time of death. Thus the haemorrhage excuse is unfounded and baseless since the original theory is based on comparing Sheila to someone who has infact lost more blood as a result of her own haemorrhages caused by the same weapon.

In your mind my claims have been dismantled. But in reality my claims are not faltering.

I've already pointed out one of the many determinants of lividity is body temp.  Dr Kelly was found dead outside.  He was last seen alive during an afternoon and found dead the following morning in woodlands.   

I have no idea why you're persisting with this when a giant form the forensic world like Prof Knight states the following:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8021.msg390146#msg390146

There's nothing wrong with being somewhat sceptical about 'experts' but the overwhelming consensus amongst highly qualified pathologists of long experience is that many factors affect the onset of lividity and it is an unreliable indicator of time of death.

[adam]

The pathologist at trial said there was no way to determine anyone's time of death.

There has also never been given a reason why Sheila would keep herself awake for several hours after everyone else. Apart from it benefits Bamber's campaign for freedom.

[Caroline]

The pathologist at trial said there was no way to determine anyone's time of death.

There has also never been given a reason why Sheila would keep herself awake for several hours after everyone else. Apart from it benefits Bamber's campaign for freedom.

I think people expect that TOD can be determined down to the last second, which is rubbish.

[Holly Goodhead]

The pathologist at trial said there was no way to determine anyone's time of death.

There has also never been given a reason why Sheila would keep herself awake for several hours after everyone else. Apart from it benefits Bamber's campaign for freedom.

I doubt you will find a bona fide pathologist in the world who will disagree with the above.  But David1819 knows best  %£&)**#

There's no evidence SC died significantly later than the other victims.  Most supporters are bunch of complete numpties incl JB.   

[Caroline]

I doubt you will find a bona fide pathologist in the world who will disagree with the above.  But David1819 knows best  %£&)**#

There's no evidence SC died significantly later than the other victims.  Most supporters are bunch of complete numpties incl JB.

 

[scipio_usmc]

You did not point out anything. You came up with an excuse.

Yawn. Heard this before.


This part of Sheila's autopsy has been attributed to the following literature

Conversely, the development of lividity may be delayed in persons with chronic anemia or massive terminal hemorrhage.

Why haemorrhage can delay or stop hypostasis and why it does not apply to Sheila

Haemorrhage is the discharge/escape of blood from the blood vessels. Post mortem hypostasis depends on blood pooling in the deceased according to the direction of gravity. If haemorrhage results in enough blood leaving the body it can effect the development and appearance of hypostasis.

Hypostasis is not always seen in a body and it may be absent in the young, the old and the clinically anaemic or in those who have died from severe blood loss.
Simpson's Forensic Medicine, 13th edition

It is the size of the wound that important but the amount of blood lost as a result of those wounds. Now lets compare Sheila's blood loss to those of other cases were hypostasis is mentioned

Comparative analysis no1

The death of David Kelly in 2003. Having cut his own wrists, he bled to death losing around 4-5 pints of blood. As a result you can see from the autopsy report examiners noted the hypostasis was weakly developed.   


Comparative analysis no2

Nicole Brown Simpson 1994, Having had her throat cut open hypostasis still developed and this played an important part of the case.

MR. KELBERG: Doctor, yesterday, you were talking about--on direct examination, if I can find my--talking about Dr. Lakshmanan's testimony concerning, as he described it, a mottled area of ecchymosis along the right side of the back area of Nicole Brown Simpson. Do you recall talking about that in your direct examination?

DR. BADEN: Yes, I do.

MR. KELBERG: And, doctor, would it be accurate to say on your direct examination, you said, no. 1, in your opinion, that's not a shoeprint that is present there?

DR. BADEN: I said it's not an ecchymosis, it's not a bruise, no. 1. No. 2, it's not a shoeprint, but it's not even a bruise.

MR. KELBERG: And you said in fact that it was lividity although you didn't use the term "Lividity." Isn't that what you said?

DR. BADEN: Well, I said it was a form of lividity. That is, the postmortem settling of blood in the way the body settles after death, the blood settles after death depending on what the body is lying on.


Comparative analysis no3

last but not least lets compare Sheila to June. Based on the crime scene photos alone, The haemorrhages inflicted on June has allowed more blood to escape the body of June than that of Sheila. June having sustained 7 gunshots as opposed to Shelia's 2 gunshots wounds is the primary reason June has lose more significantly more blood than Sheila. Yet hypostasis is strongly developed in June but only just beginning to develop in Sheila. This leads back to my original conclusion that there is a disparity in the time of death. Thus the haemorrhage excuse is unfounded and baseless since the original theory is based on comparing Sheila to someone who has infact lost more blood as a result of her own haemorrhages caused by the same weapon.

In your mind my claims have been dismantled. But in reality my claims are not faltering.

In your mind your claims have merit but the evidence proves otherwise.  You suffer from the delusion that if you refuse to admit you are wrong and maintain the same broken record claims that such prevents them from being proven to have zero merit.  Your subjective opinions have zero impact at all on the objective reality.

The objective realities are:

1) the photos are of insufficient quality to make any assessments and this alone crushes you

2) hypostasis doesn't always develop at all let alone will it always be consistent and it is not a valid indicator of TOD.

3) severe blood loss plays a big role and Sheila suffered from significant blood loss.

You have produced nothing to refute these points and nothing to prove the claims you made up.

You are simply playing the same broken record routine as you are with respect to Dr Craig.  Even though it has been pointed out countless times that he only referenced 1 gunshot wound to each victim to support his theory they died of being shot to death, you keep insisting it means he missed all the other wounds or the other wounds were delivered later by police.

You have become a clone of Mike. 

[scipio_usmc]

Incredibly Dr Craig only noticed one of Sheila's wounds. Despite the other being in plain sight. Its this kind of poor observations from EP that prompts Mike to create his wild theories.

You and Mike distort in order to create your wild theories you act just like him. You just made this nonsense charge even though I explained to you he was not trying to describe all GSWs he observed to each victim. He identified 1 shot to each victim that would be fatal if untreated and cited that as evidence of each being shot to death.

It is irrational to try claiming he missed all the other wounds to all the victims let alone to say the wounds were not present when he inspected the victims. He wasn't trying to detail all the GSWs just to provide support for his opinion they all died by being shot.   Anyone not rational enough to face and accept is simply harming their own reputation when asserting he either missed the other wounds or they were not yet present.  So all you are doing is harming your own credibility not harming Craig's.

Taking this distortion even further and claiming the fiction he would be too stupid to tell if the victims were actually dead since he failed to observe all GSWs is even more ludicrous. Trying to defend Mike when he does such fails miserably and makes you as bad as him.