The absence of blood smears on Sheila's neck indicates she was incapacitated after the first shot

[John]

In relation to Sheila's ability to fire a second shot.  One has to remember that the pathologist Vanezis never saw the body in situ at the farmhouse so was initially misled as to the blood smears on Sheila's neck.  Later when he saw Bird's photographs he realised his inutial mistake.  Sheila was not conscious after the first shot and anyone who thinks differently simply doesn't understand the forensic evidence.

[Holly Goodhead]

In relation to Sheila's ability to fire a second shot.  One has to remember that the pathologist Vanezis never saw the body in situ at the farmhouse so was initially misled as to the blood smears on Sheila's neck.  Later when he saw Bird's photographs he realised his inutial mistake.  Sheila was not conscious after the first shot and anyone who thinks differently simply doesn't understand the forensic evidence.

I don't understand your comment re the "blood smears on Sheila's neck" and would be grateful if you could explain.

I know I get stick for relying on links but that's all I can go on really.   With regard to this point I rely on evidence contained in the CoA doc from 2002 and points 45 and 46 below.  It states the lower of the two wounds  must have been the first since it had led to haemorrhaging inside the neck and  this would not have occurred to the same extent if the other wound, which would have been immediately fatal, had preceded it.  Before this it states the lower of the two would have been a fatal injury but not one where death would have occurred immediately and a person having suffered such an injury may have been able to stand up and walk around for a little time.  It then states that the lack of heavy blood staining to SC's nightdress suggest that she had not actually walked around although it was possible.

If you think this is incorrect I might write to the judges about it as I believe they are the authors of this document.   Incidentally I never heard back from Dr Vanezis about the burns.  I thought it unlikely but it was worth a try.  Nothing ventured: nothing gained.

45. Sheila Caffell was also dressed in her nightwear and bare-footed. She had received two contact or near contact bullet wounds to her throat. The higher of the two wounds would have killed her almost instantaneously. The lower of the two would have been a fatal injury but not one where death would have occurred immediately and a person having suffered such an injury may have been able to stand up and walk around for a little time. The lack of heavy blood staining to Sheila Caffell's nightdress suggested that this had not happened here. The lower of the two injuries must have been the first since it had led to haemorrhaging inside the neck and this would not have occurred to the same extent if the other wound, which would have been immediately fatal, had preceded it. Dr Vanezis gave evidence that the nature of the blood stains to the nightdress suggested that Sheila Caffell was sitting up when she received both injuries. After the second injury she would have immediately fallen back. There was no evidence of any other mark or injury to Sheila Caffell's body such as might be suffered during a fight or in a scuffle.

46. From the pathological evidence alone, the pathologist could not say, one way or the other, whether Mrs Caffell had been murdered or had taken her own life.

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

[Holly Goodhead]

Further to my post above I don't see why pro Bluies talk about SC moving herself from downstairs to upstairs having fired the first shot.  Although it seems based on the pathological evidence this would be biologically possible; the state of SC's nightdress would seem to rule this out.

Imo for what it's worth I think the pathology evidence as contained in the CoA doc is stronger than the contradictory evidence regarding two bodies downstairs etc, etc which imo is likely to be an administrative error.

I think JB supporters harm his case by not sticking to one unifying narrative based on the evidence.  They want to seize on any anomaly to the detriment of other evidence ie the lack of blood on SC's nightdress v reports of two bodies downstairs.  It is perfectly feasible that SC inflicted the two wounds in the position she was found in as per the pathological evidence.  Why they want to come up with bizarre stories re photos on the bed, moving around the house I have no idea  8-)(--)

[scipio_usmc]

I don't understand your comment re the "blood smears on Sheila's neck" and would be grateful if you could explain.

I know I get stick for relying on links but that's all I can go on really.   With regard to this point I rely on evidence contained in the CoA doc from 2002 and points 45 and 46 below.  It states the lower of the two wounds  must have been the first since it had led to haemorrhaging inside the neck and  this would not have occurred to the same extent if the other wound, which would have been immediately fatal, had preceded it.  Before this it states the lower of the two would have been a fatal injury but not one where death would have occurred immediately and a person having suffered such an injury may have been able to stand up and walk around for a little time.  It then states that the lack of heavy blood staining to SC's nightdress suggest that she had not actually walked around although it was possible.

If you think this is incorrect I might write to the judges about it as I believe they are the authors of this document.   Incidentally I never heard back from Dr Vanezis about the burns.  I thought it unlikely but it was worth a try.  Nothing ventured: nothing gained.

45. Sheila Caffell was also dressed in her nightwear and bare-footed. She had received two contact or near contact bullet wounds to her throat. The higher of the two wounds would have killed her almost instantaneously. The lower of the two would have been a fatal injury but not one where death would have occurred immediately and a person having suffered such an injury may have been able to stand up and walk around for a little time. The lack of heavy blood staining to Sheila Caffell's nightdress suggested that this had not happened here. The lower of the two injuries must have been the first since it had led to haemorrhaging inside the neck and this would not have occurred to the same extent if the other wound, which would have been immediately fatal, had preceded it. Dr Vanezis gave evidence that the nature of the blood stains to the nightdress suggested that Sheila Caffell was sitting up when she received both injuries. After the second injury she would have immediately fallen back. There was no evidence of any other mark or injury to Sheila Caffell's body such as might be suffered during a fight or in a scuffle.

46. From the pathological evidence alone, the pathologist could not say, one way or the other, whether Mrs Caffell had been murdered or had taken her own life.

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

Who are you trying to kid?  You ignore anything that dashes your claims.  The appeal decision you claim to use clearly stated multiple times that the fatal shot was a contact shot to her throat.  You had the audacity to insist is wasn't a contact shot and wouldn't produce spatter even though the appeal decision states that a shot in that location would be virtually certain to cause back spatter into the weapon.

Note where you ended, from the pathological evidence alone.  What is the pathological evidence alone?  The evidence of the autopsy all alone in isolation.  But at trial the pathologist did not view such evidence alone in isolaion it was tied in to all the other evidence and thus his testimony at trial was that she didn't kill herself she was killed by someone else. 

So you take an appeal decision that notes the expert testimony determined based on all the evidence she could not have killed herself and was murdered and you quote from a part about an isolated piece of the puzzle and try to pretend that there is no way to know whether she was killed by someone or killed herself.  That is called spin and it fails miserably when one reads the entire opinion which concludes based on the evidence presented at trial that Jeremy did it.

[scipio_usmc]

Further to my post above I don't see why pro Bluies talk about SC moving herself from downstairs to upstairs having fired the first shot.  Although it seems based on the pathological evidence this would be biologically possible; the state of SC's nightdress would seem to rule this out.

Imo for what it's worth I think the pathology evidence as contained in the CoA doc is stronger than the contradictory evidence regarding two bodies downstairs etc, etc which imo is likely to be an administrative error.

I think JB supporters harm his case by not sticking to one unifying narrative based on the evidence.  They want to seize on any anomaly to the detriment of other evidence ie the lack of blood on SC's nightdress v reports of two bodies downstairs.  It is perfectly feasible that SC inflicted the two wounds in the position she was found in as per the pathological evidence.  Why they want to come up with bizarre stories re photos on the bed, moving around the house I have no idea  8-)(--)

If you read the entire document laying out all the evidence then it is clear that it was not possible for SC to inflict the wounds in question.  Your suggestions are as bizarre as their and you are doing the same thing as them only to a lesser degree.  Instead of tossing in the kitchen sink too you toss in everything but the kitchen sink.  The only difference between you and them is the matter of degree.

The report notes that the fatal wound was a contact wound, that was the finding of the pathologist who examined her.  You deny it was a contact wound without any basis to challenge his findings. You are doing the same thing as those on blue- denying relaity because it harms what you wish were the case.

The appeal court decision notes that if the fatal shot had been delivered without the suppressor attached it would be virtually certain to have blood inside the barrel but there was none thus indicating it was fired with a suppressor.  It further discusses how the expected spatter was found in the suppressor including microscopic evidence found by the defense's own expert on the initial 8 baffles which he determined to be group A blood type.

You refuse to believe the findings and insist that the fatal wound would not produce back spatter without having any basis at all to contradict the findings. Any evidence that demolishes your claims you just dismiss without having any basis to do so.

Thus you even throw in the kitchen sink at times just like them.  The notion that sticking a suppressor in a bucket of water with diluted blood from clothing could deposit blood chips and blood deposits on the first 8 baffles is absurd. The only rational argument that could be mad eis to claim someone used something to spray blood inside the suppressor to plant it. Even that is far fetched but theoretically possible unlike your wild claims about the bloody buckets. So at the end of the day you are just the kettle calling the pot black. 

 

[Holly Goodhead]

Who are you trying to kid?  You ignore anything that dashes your claims.  The appeal decision you claim to use clearly stated multiple times that the fatal shot was a contact shot to her throat.  You had the audacity to insist is wasn't a contact shot and wouldn't produce spatter even though the appeal decision states that a shot in that location would be virtually certain to cause back spatter into the weapon.

Note where you ended, from the pathological evidence alone.  What is the pathological evidence alone?  The evidence of the autopsy all alone in isolation.  But at trial the pathologist did not view such evidence alone in isolaion it was tied in to all the other evidence and thus his testimony at trial was that she didn't kill herself she was killed by someone else. 

So you take an appeal decision that notes the expert testimony determined based on all the evidence she could not have killed herself and was murdered and you quote from a part about an isolated piece of the puzzle and try to pretend that there is no way to know whether she was killed by someone or killed herself.  That is called spin and it fails miserably when one reads the entire opinion which concludes based on the evidence presented at trial that Jeremy did it.

Hello Scipio.  How are you today?  Debate nicely or I will simply ignore you and you will end up having no one to play with 

My post/response to John was about SC's ability to self-inflict a second gunshot wound not whether the gunshot wounds she received were contact or not.

As with much of this case the expert evidence is contradictory, which I might add is often a feature of MoJ's.

As you rightly pointed out the ballistics expert Malcolm Fletcher stated in the CoA doc that the upper wound to SC's throat was a contact shot:

62. Mr Fletcher also gave evidence of the range at which the shots had been fired. The lower (and not immediately fatal) of the injuries suffered by Sheila Caffell was caused when the muzzle of the gun was within three inches of the throat. The upper injury was a contact shot.

However the pathologist, Peter Vanenzis, stated in his autopsy report:

"There were two gun shot entry wounds which appear to have been fired at contact or near contact range"

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=199.0;attach=672

In the above scenario my understanding is that evidence from the pathologist will take precedence over that provided by ballistics.  Stating "appear to have been fired at contact or near contact range" is not the same as stating they were contact.  Please note the words "appear" and "or".

I have no intention of going round in circles on this point. 

[John]

Holly, you asked me about the lack of blood smears on Sheila's neck.  To best explain this I will post the original photo taken in the bedroom before she was moved. 

When someone is shot in the face or neck with a relatively small calibre weapon the automatic response is to touch the wound thereby getting blood on their fingertips and leaving blood smears on the skin. None of this was present with Sheila.

Sheila never touched the wounds on her neck because to put it simply, she was incapacitated by the first shot.

[steve_trousers]

Good point John and another common sense sign that says Sheila couldnt have done it. Having just fired a bullet through her neck her hands would have been covered in her own blood, being conscious and able to have another go?

Or is this where his fans bring her drug induced state into it, she was so spaced out she didnt feel pain or know she had been shot

[scipio_usmc]

Hello Scipio.  How are you today?  Debate nicely or I will simply ignore you and you will end up having no one to play with 

My post/response to John was about SC's ability to self-inflict a second gunshot wound not whether the gunshot wounds she received were contact or not.

As with much of this case the expert evidence is contradictory, which I might add is often a feature of MoJ's.

As you rightly pointed out the ballistics expert Malcolm Fletcher stated in the CoA doc that the upper wound to SC's throat was a contact shot:

62. Mr Fletcher also gave evidence of the range at which the shots had been fired. The lower (and not immediately fatal) of the injuries suffered by Sheila Caffell was caused when the muzzle of the gun was within three inches of the throat. The upper injury was a contact shot.

However the pathologist, Peter Vanenzis, stated in his autopsy report:

"There were two gun shot entry wounds which appear to have been fired at contact or near contact range"

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=199.0;attach=672

In the above scenario my understanding is that evidence from the pathologist will take precedence over that provided by ballistics.  Stating "appear to have been fired at contact or near contact range" is not the same as stating they were contact.  Please note the words "appear" and "or".

I have no intention of going round in circles on this point.

The conclusion in the report is that it was either contact or near contact.  The word "appears" merely notes it is his view which is not really necessary since he authored the report but some write that way anyway.  His assessent was that it was contact or near contact. Based on other evidence he concluded it was contact and told such to the ballistics expert.  You liek dot go by a report not the complete testimony because it is veyr harful to your cause.  At trial the distance of close contact was discussed.  So the court was told the shots were either contact or within a distance of less than 2mm.  Based on this the appeal court made the factual finding that it was a contact wound and asserted such in its decision.

Saying the court was wrong and should have found the distance it was fired was either contact or within 2mm is nitpicking for nothing because it changes nothing.

If fired at 2mm or less it would result in drawback into the weapon.

In the meantime you insisted is wasn't a contact wound though he court found it was based on the testimony was that it was either a contact wound or under 2MM.

The court had a valid basis to find it was a contact wound.  You had no valid basis to declare it wasn't.

You insisted that Nicholas was the only one that definitely suffered a contact shot.  Yet the autopsy report makes so such claim.  It doesn't state contact, near contact or anything. 

The trial testimony was that they were close promity shots and maybe even contact. The testimony actually left open the possiblity for these shots to be further away than those suffered by Sheila.  Sheila's were contact or near contact his were close proximity maybe even contact.  Close proximity is further than near contact.   

So the autopsy report said contact or near contact for Sheila's wounds but didn't say any such thing for Nicholas' wounds.  You insisted anyway that his wounds were definitely contact while hers were not.

The court found his wounds were either contact or close proximity based on the testimony they heard and that her fatal wound was a contact wound. 

I will go with their assessment not yours.  They were being objective not playing games like you.

You are not in the least bit consistent.  You say go by the autopsy report's words to the letter for Sheila but go to the trial testimony to Nicholas.  In any event that testimony still is not great because it was close proximity and maybe even contact not definitely contact like you asserted.  The testimony was that Sheila's was contact or less than 2mm and that at this range the wound in quesiton would have been virtually certain to result in back spatter. 

It doesn't matter if it was contac tor not whether contact or there was a gap under 2mm either way back spatter would result and that is the issue at hand.

The rifle had no backspatter so either it had a suppressor attached,  was cleaned by someone before it was inspected by the firearms expert, or the firearms expert lied about not finding any blood.

There is substantial evidence that the suppressor was used in the kitchen (broke the ceiling light shade, scratched the mantle and that it was not removed until after Sheila had been shot. 

Nothing you have tossed out there dents this at all. You have to misrepresent to try to dent it and those misrepresentations get flagged by us whenever you raise them.

[Holly Goodhead]

Holly, you asked me about the lack of blood smears on Sheila's neck.  To best explain this I will post the original photo taken in the bedroom before she was moved. 

When someone is shot in the face or neck with a relatively small calibre weapon the automatic response is to touch the wound thereby getting blood on their fingertips and leaving blood smears on the skin. None of this was present with Sheila.

Sheila never touched the wounds on her neck because to put it simply, she was incapacitated by the first shot.

Thank you John.

The pathologist makes no reference to the lack of smearing on SC's neck ie that had she have fired the first shot some involuntarily spasm/reflex would occur whereby her hand would go to her neck and smear the blood?  I have absolutely no idea what happens.  I can only go on what the pathologist states.  He also states that in SC's case it was not immediately fatal and she might even have been capable of walking around for a while.  Although he doesn't think she did walk around due to the lack of blood on her nightie.

[John]

Thank you John.

The pathologist makes no reference to the lack of smearing on SC's neck ie that had she have fired the first shot some involuntarily spasm/reflex would occur whereby her hand would go to her neck and smear the blood?  I have absolutely no idea what happens.  I can only go on what the pathologist states.  He also states that in SC's case it was not immediately fatal and she might even have been capable of walking around for a while.  Although he doesn't think she did walk around due to the lack of blood on her nightie.

When the pathologist first saw and examined Sheila she looked completely different to the photo above.  Blood had been smeared all over her face and neck rendering analysis impossible.  It was only later when he saw the crime scene photos that he realised that his analysis was not as it should have been.  I will dig out the autopsy photo later when in the office and add it to this post.

I think the suggestion that Sheila walked around for a bit after having been shot in the neck is quite preposterous really. I'm glad that you recognise this, the blood trails certainly disprove it.

[Holly Goodhead]

When the pathologist first saw and examined Sheila she looked completely different to the photo above.  Blood had been smeared all over her face and neck rendering analysis impossible.  It was only later when he saw the crime scene photos that he realised that his analysis was not as it should have been.  I will dig out the autopsy photo later when in the office and add it to this post.

I think the suggestion that Sheila walked around for a bit after having been shot in the neck is quite preposterous really. I'm glad that you recognise this, the blood trails certainly disprove it.

Thank you.  I will look out for the photo as and when.

I will only base my opinions etc on the expert evidence (albeit my interpretation!) and from the pathologist's reports it seems so unlikely that SC moved either of her own free will or by others that it can effectively be ruled out.  I include in this downstairs to upstairs and/or bed to floor.

[John]

The mortuary photo.

Holly, I am quite sure you will agree that had you seen Sheila in this state at the beginning you would have formed a completely different opinion.

[Myster]

Looking at the two(?) blood smears (one above the other) around the top wound bullet hole, do these appear to have been the result of the end of the moderator, or a finger/thumb being wiped across the wound from the right side of her neck to the left ? (i.e. from left to right in the photo)

There's a large blob (darker) at the end of each which is what you might expect if something was dragged across in that direction, if it caught some of the blood oozing/streaming out of the wound. Could these have been caused by the assailant with the moderator end, or by the attending doctor or even a policeman who was trying to examine the wound more closely ?

[Holly Goodhead]

The mortuary photo.

Holly, I am quite sure you will agree that had you seen Sheila in this state at the beginning you would have formed a completely different opinion.

Thanks.

The images are so distressing.  I would be horrified if I was wrong 

I don't think I can determine anything other than the two images look different. It appears there is more blood staining to the neck area in the autopsy image.  Would this have come from the body bag/transit?