Is there any evidence which implicates Sheila?

[APRIL]

The pathologist provided a complete breakdown of the non-gunshot wounds.  He even states a woman of SC's build could have inflicted the injuries present.

I'm hazarding a guess that "knocking blazes out of" doesn't include gsw's. The clue is in "knocking" which is pretty close to what was done to Nevill's head.

[Holly Goodhead]

Ferguson said that Sheila was over sedated on the initial dose which is why he gave his permission to reduce it.

Dr Ferguson was/is a psychiatrist not a chemist/toxicolgist/pharmacologist.

What is important is the level of toxicocity at tod and we know from chemist Alexander Allan that the level of Haloperidol in SC's blood at tod was within the medium range at the low end. 

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Simply because it's in print, doesn't make it true. You should be aware that not all you read can be accepted as being true. Back to Sheila's hair for the moment. With the benefit of the PM, it's wet/dry state was argued ad nausuem on another forum. Had the report mentioned it, there'd have been no purpose in the argument. Incidentally, the partially digested food in her stomach is documented. At the other end of the scale, an author named Claire X? writes as if she not only knew the family personally, but almost as if she shared the last meal with them. It was accepted as being definitive by many. It was little more than a docunovel. She didn't know the family and it was written years after they were dead. But it sold.

I don't doubt that you've read 'it' and that sharing your finds with us might be well intentioned and demonstrate how interested in the case you are. However, there are those who know it the best part of inside out and if you present something iffy, without naming a source, you will be jumped on. All I can suggest is that if you think you've read it, find the source before you write.

Thank you, April — I’ve taken what you said on board.

I do actually dismiss much of what I read on the WWW as I know much of it is wrong. But what I read about Sheila’s hair was on an official site, which I will find. I didn’t take screenshots as I didn’t feel it relevant at the time, especially as this “ritual bathing” nonsense was the last thing on my mind.

Also, I assumed that everyone would realise the whole body is examined in a PM

[Holly Goodhead]

I'm hazarding a guess that "knocking blazes out of" doesn't include gsw's. The clue is in "knocking" which is pretty close to what was done to Nevill's head.

As I said Dr Vanezis provided a complete breakdown of the non-gsw's and there's nothing about knocking blazes out of.  The non-gsw's did not even produce blood.  NB sustained 2 gsw's to his face and four to his head so yes his head was very badly injured.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I think CCRC, CoA and CPS will decide that.

They’ve already done that, Holly — and simply INCREASED his sentence

[Holly Goodhead]

Thank you, April — I’ve taken what you said on board.

I do actually dismiss much of what I read on the WWW as I know much of it is wrong. But what I read about Sheila’s hair was on an official site, which I will find. I didn’t take screenshots as I didn’t feel it relevant at the time, especially as this “ritual bathing” nonsense was the last thing on my mind.

Also, I assumed that everyone would realise the whole body is examined in a PM

If the pathologist examined SC's hair and found debris he would have said as much in the post mortem report.  He is very detailed noting such things as nicotine stains, stretch marks and scars ftom breast implants so why would he overlook anything in her hair?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

There's no evidence CC ever met with the pathologist Dr Vanezis.  I believe he did speak with SC's psychiatrist and discuss her medication but the appropriate person to determine toxicology was chemist Alexander Allan not SC's psychiatrist Dr Ferguson.

I don't believe anyone claimed at trial SC was over sedated etc.

So you’re calling Colin a liar, are you?

You’ve never met Colin in your life, neither have you met Sheila’s doctors, the pathologist or the chemist.

And here you are STATING Colin never met them; never spoke to them; and he’s lying.

[Holly Goodhead]

So you’re calling Colin a liar, are you?

You’ve never met Colin in your life, neither have you met Sheila’s doctors, the pathologist or the chemist.

And here you are STATING Colin never met them; never spoke to them; and he’s lying.

Since when does stating there's no evidence of something mean someone is lying?

SC's psychiatrist probably spoke with CC because a) he was paid privately by the Bamber's and b) as father to the twins he was jointly responsible for their welfare along with SC.

There would be no reason for the pathologist and chemist to discuss SC with her ex-husband.

[Holly Goodhead]

They’ve already done that, Holly — and simply INCREASED his sentence

Douglas Hurd increased JB's sentence from 25 years to a whole life tarrif.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

You are insistent on having a ‘shooting reconstruction’.  I am at a loss to understand how such a thing could possibly be accomplished.

I think it is nothing more than a red herring.

The witnesses are dead and only the shooter knows the sequence of the events he orchestrated and he has no intention of sharing.

It’s absolutely ludicrous to think a court would even CONSIDER a shooting reconstruction when A) the perp, Jeremy Bamber was found guilty on four counts of murder, B) He’s list ever appeal/leave to appeal/appeal at the European Court of Human Rights, C) He killed them all in 1985 and besides them all being dead, many of the police officers who handled the case are dead too, including possibly the Barristers, lawyers, judges, jury and witnesses, D) they didn’t know THEN the exact sequence of events and who was shot first/last....

So how could they do a reconstruction when they don’t know in what order Jeremy Bamber shot them all dead?

Or is he going to tell them in which order he did it?

[G-Unit]

So you’re calling Colin a liar, are you?

You’ve never met Colin in your life, neither have you met Sheila’s doctors, the pathologist or the chemist.

And here you are STATING Colin never met them; never spoke to them; and he’s lying.

Just quote your source and the argument will end. Didn't you say it was in his book? Which page?

[Caroline]

As I said Dr Vanezis provided a complete breakdown of the non-gsw's and there's nothing about knocking blazes out of.  The non-gsw's did not even produce blood.  NB sustained 2 gsw's to his face and four to his head so yes his head was very badly injured.

"Nevill had suffered other injuries besides gunshot wounds. The severe bruising to his eyes and a laceration to the right side of his nose were due to a blow from a fist or blunt object. Bruising on his forehead and the right side of his face and ear, together with lateral marks to his left cheek, were the result of contact with a blunt object or surface. Lacerations to the top of his head were caused by something with an edge to it, inducing a lot of mostly veinous bleeding. Two deep score lines on the left side of his head had been produced by pressing against the coal scuttle. A laceration to his right shoulder was thought to have been caused by the impact of the rifle stock and there was an unexplained graze on the right side of his chest. His right hand had bled from loss of skin while gouges and bruises on his right forearm later led to speculation that fingernails had been dug into his skin, but Vanezis states firmly: ‘They’re not nail marks at all. Absolutely not – it’s much more like pistol-whipping."

Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (p. 192). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.

Several laceration are mentioned, lacerations are cuts and cuts bleed. It is clear from his description that he firmy believes that Nevill was beaten.

[APRIL]

Douglas Hurd increased JB's sentence from 25 years to a whole life tarrif.

An increase was already on the cards. The presiding judge said, at the time he handed down a (minimum of?) 25 year sentence that it remained to be seen whether it would ever be considered safe for him to be allowed to go free.

[Caroline]

The prosecution and defence agreed the perp was either JB or SC.  So of course SC was of interest to the court.

The only reason that was said was because of Bambers claim of the phone call from his father.

[Holly Goodhead]

"Nevill had suffered other injuries besides gunshot wounds. The severe bruising to his eyes and a laceration to the right side of his nose were due to a blow from a fist or blunt object. Bruising on his forehead and the right side of his face and ear, together with lateral marks to his left cheek, were the result of contact with a blunt object or surface. Lacerations to the top of his head were caused by something with an edge to it, inducing a lot of mostly veinous bleeding. Two deep score lines on the left side of his head had been produced by pressing against the coal scuttle. A laceration to his right shoulder was thought to have been caused by the impact of the rifle stock and there was an unexplained graze on the right side of his chest. His right hand had bled from loss of skin while gouges and bruises on his right forearm later led to speculation that fingernails had been dug into his skin, but Vanezis states firmly: ‘They’re not nail marks at all. Absolutely not – it’s much more like pistol-whipping."

Lee, Carol Ann. The Murders at White House Farm: Jeremy Bamber and the killing of his family. The definitive investigation. (p. 192). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.

Several laceration are mentioned, lacerations are cuts and cuts bleed. It is clear from his description that he firmy believes that Nevill was beaten.

Why not hear it direct from the horses mouth on pages 3, 4 and 5:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=205.msg2230#msg2230