I despair sometimes of the rubbish posted on the Jeremy Bamber forum.

[John]

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

[APRIL]

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.................

[Holly Goodhead]

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. 

[APRIL]

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".

[Holly Goodhead]

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

[Myster]

But have they tried asking a baby not to  ?.  It's just.............

[APRIL]

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.

[Myster]

Dr. Vanezis - Examined about SC's neck wounds and blood on her hands...

[Holly Goodhead]

But have they tried asking a baby not to  ?.  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!

[Holly Goodhead]

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.

[puglove]

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!)

[Myster]

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!

[Holly Goodhead]

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.   

[Myster]

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! 

[Holly Goodhead]

As always... ahem!

Except JB's case