Is there any evidence which implicates Sheila?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

As I understand it all the victims were shot at short range, so it’s reasonable to assume the assailant would have had at least one of the victims blood on their own body especially if they were engaged in a struggle with a bleeding victim.  Whose blood apart from her own did Sheila have on her body, hair, clothes, etc?

Sheila only had her own blood on her...

[Myster]

Myster, I don’t hallucinate, nor do I lie

I didn’t read that in CAL’s book, but then again she hasn’t detailed every single solitary thing — there’s no need. She detailed her main points.  She didn’t even really touch on the campaigners and their strange beliefs, so as it’s total nonsense that Sheila did “ritual bathing” I’m sure she didn’t feel it worthy of even mentioning.

I'm sure your imagination is running away with you.  There is nothing in Dr Vanezis's reports or anywhere else which states that samples of particles taken from SC's hair or scalp were examined in order to determine whether she had washed it or not the previous evening.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Whose blood would you expect to see on SC and by what means do you think it deposited on her nightdress/person? 

Please bear in mind that it was not possible back in 85/86 to even group microscopic blood stains.  Had the nightdress not been destroyed by Essex police against all protocols it would have been possible to subject it to DNA testing.

You’d have SEEN the blood splatters on her nightdress!  It was pale blue!

There was NO blood on Sheila, and no gun residue — forensics tested her nightdress for goodness sake.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

The two small blood stains on the landing carpet revealed AK2-1 which from the victims only June possessed.

In that official document it mentions the “blood flake”

Yesterday, you twice said “the SUPPOSED blood flake” inferring one hadn’t been found in the silencer...

Thank you for verifying that there was a blood flake ☺️

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Not in any of the pathology notes on this site, it isn't.

Well, I shall have to find it for you....

I know what I read, Myster

[mrswah]

You’d have SEEN the blood splatters on her nightdress!  It was pale blue!

There was NO blood on Sheila, and no gun residue — forensics tested her nightdress for goodness sake.

I have seen photos of Sheila where there is blood on her nightdress---can't say whether they were spatters though.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I'm sure your imagination is running away with you.  There is nothing in Dr Vanezis's reports or anywhere else which states that samples of particles taken from SC's hair or scalp were examined in order to determine whether she had washed it or not the previous evening.

I take exception to that.

Unlike the deluded campaigners I do not have a vivid imagination — I’m extremely grounded and neither do I make up pathetic fairytales. Why would I deliberately make myself look stupid by repeating something like that?

I know what I read; I have an extremely good memory on information I hear or read. Yes, I have read a huge amount about the case, including books, whole transcripts of the case, appeal hearing, witness statements etc...and because of that I can’t always remember the exact date/time/place I discovered the information as my brain isn’t a computer that notes all times, places and sources — hence why I have to search.

I feel some people deliberately ask me to find sources because they don’t WANT to believe certain things, and they’re well aware I don’t like spending time searching simply to show them proof which they the either ignore or dismiss as “wrong” or “biased” or  “CAL got it wrong “, or “the policeman got confused”, or “Julie was lying”...I’m quite tired of it, actually.

It’s insulting when I’m being accused of hallucinating or lying!

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I have seen photos of Sheila where there is blood on her nightdress---can't say whether they were spatters though.

The blood that was on Sheila’s nightdress underneath her right armpit was hers...it had run down from her neck when Jeremy shot her.

There was also a smaller amount of blood beneath her right hand , which again, was hers.

There was also some trails of blood on her right arm and of course her face.

But other than the blood beneath her right armpit she had no blood whatsoever on her nightdress (or her body)

[APRIL]

I take exception to that.

Unlike the deluded campaigners I do not have a vivid imagination — I’m extremely grounded and neither do I make up pathetic fairytales. Why would I deliberately make myself look stupid by repeating something like that?

I know what I read; I have an extremely good memory on information I hear or read. Yes, I have read a huge amount about the case, including books, whole transcripts of the case, appeal hearing, witness statements etc...and because of that I can’t always remember the exact date/time/place I discovered the information as my brain isn’t a computer that notes all times, places and sources — hence why I have to search.

I feel some people deliberately ask me to find sources because they don’t WANT to believe certain things, and they’re well aware I don’t like spending time searching simply to show them proof which they the either ignore or dismiss as “wrong” or “biased” or  “CAL got it wrong “, or “the policeman got confused”, or “Julie was lying”...I’m quite tired of it, actually.

It’s insulting when I’m being accused of hallucinating or lying!

Spy, I think the reason you word is doubted is because you constantly present as facts, things that no one here, many of whom are uber knowledgeable about the case, has ever previously heard. In my own case, the minute examination of Sheila's hair. Had I read it, having actually worked for the examining board, such is my interest, it would have jumped off the page at me. Following that is the frequently used phrase "I will find it for you". I'd rather receive a pound for the times you've made the promise, than a pound for the times you've fulfilled it, and Spy, if you don't want to be doubted, fulfill it, you must.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Sheila only had her own blood on her...

So there is no forensic evidence directly linking Sheila to any of her alleged victims.  What else?  What other evidence proves that it was Sheila that committed the crimes?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Spy, I think the reason you word is doubted is because you constantly present as facts, things that no one here, many of whom are uber knowledgeable about the case, has ever previously heard. In my own case, the minute examination of Sheila's hair. Had I read it, having actually worked for the examining board, such is my interest, it would have jumped off the page at me. Following that is the frequently used phrase "I will find it for you". I'd rather receive a pound for the times you've made the promise, than a pound for the times you've fulfilled it, and Spy, if you don't want to be doubted, fulfill it, you must.

April.

Everything I’ve ever posted on here I’ve got from official sources such as the Court Hearings Statements, CAL’s book etc...and I’ve quoted them. I haven’t always put links up, or pictures, often because I’ve had problems adding photos etc, which I’ve actually found frustrating!

I’ve been accused of making things up, and I have indeed supplied proof, much to the chagrin of people such as Holly, MrsWah and G-Unit — all staunch supporters of Jeremy Bamber. Just one example is when I said Sheila had an unusually high level of Haloperidol in her system: I got jumped on and accused of being a liar. I then supplied proof from Colin Caffell’s book, and G-Unit said “Oh, he’s wrong!”

If you care to go through my posts you’ll see where I HAVE provided several links or managed to put a photo up, and I’d like you to do that.

There’s been jus a few occasions when I’ve either forgotten someone wanted evidence (which I KNOW exists), as I’ve simply moved on to new discussions and never thought the particular requests were that relevant to start with. I also find it tedious trawling through tons of data to find one point just to satisfy someone who can’t be bothered to hunt it out themselves.

And when I DO post evidence, it’s often either ignored, or just not discussed.

I shall trawl back through my posts on here and find some where I have posted the evidence, and you’ll see the responses I’ve had.

I will find the official source where I read about Sheila’s hair, and I’m sure I’ll get little feedback for my time and trouble. Incidentally, it wasn’t on here and nor was it in CAL’s book, but read it I did. I don’t just read forums or books for my research, I go much deeper. And I most certainly wouldn’t lie about a thing like that. I never lie unnecessarily — but I’m not infallible and am occasionally wrong. And if I am wrong I will always admit it and apologise. I have done on here, which you’ll see in my posts. But I know what I read about Sheila’s hair being examined: EVERYTHING is examined in a PM, even down to the food in their stomach if it hasn’t digested.

[mrswah]

So there is no forensic evidence directly linking Sheila to any of her alleged victims.  What else?  What other evidence proves that it was Sheila that committed the crimes?

Not sure there is any forensic evidence linking Jeremy to the crimes either, but back to Sheila. No, I admit I don't know of any evidence, but then, Sheila, having died, would never have been charged or put on trial, so would anyone have heard of any, other than that she was a victim of a very serious mental illness, and the whole business was an extreme tragedy?


Some (not on this forum) have said there was a suicide note, either lost or withheld. Some have said there was movement inside the farmhouse, and that it must have been Sheila. Some have said Sheila must have died a lot later than the others, as she was still bleeding/lack of livor mortis. I'm not saying any of this is true, as I really have no idea.  Contrary to what somebody has just posted above, I am NOT a staunch supporter!!!

[Caroline]

So there is no forensic evidence directly linking Sheila to any of her alleged victims.  What else?  What other evidence proves that it was Sheila that committed the crimes?

Like I said right at the beginning - there;s none, which is why no one has responded.

[Holly Goodhead]

Like I said right at the beginning - there;s none, which is why no one has responded.

There's no evidence linking JB either.

[Vertigo Swirl]

There is literally no evidence that Sheila committed the murders but many individuals are convinced she did it.  Is it possible to murder 4 people, then kill yourself and not to leave a single piece of forensic evidence linking you to the deaths?  Someone who intended to evade detection may very well take steps to ensure no incriminating evidence is left at the scene but there would have been no need for Sheila to cover it up as she killed herself.