The Possibility of Undetected Injuries to Sheila

[Erik Narramore]

Just taking the images at face value, has an expert examined the image to establish if the apparent injuries are likely to be cuts as opposed to blood marks, and if cuts, what could have caused them?  If they are just blood marks, I doubt a conclusion can be drawn one way or the other, since the marks could easily have been caused by the police independently of the killings.

I am no expert, but I have to say, they do look like cuts.  They could have been caused by the rifle itself, as is suggested above, but they look to me like cuts caused by somebody's fingernails.  Assuming that's right and what we are seeing are cuts, it is difficult to see how these could have been caused by Jeremy, because:

(i). we're assuming Jeremy's hands were gloved;
(ii). notwithstanding (i), the centrepiece of the Crown's case is that Sheila was subdued to the extent that she could not put up any effective resistance to Jeremy's assault, assuming she was even awake.

Thus, the probable conclusion would have to be that the cuts were caused by usage of the rifle, or by Neville or June, which tells us either Sheila used the rifle that night, or there was some sort of altercation between Sheila and one or both of her parents that night.  Either points to Sheila as the likely killer.

Can anybody see an error in this reasoning, please?  Is there any other way of looking at it?

[Erik Narramore]

There are other allegations, but it's things I have heard or seen claimed in print all over the place, and it probably serves no purpose to repeat them with specificity here.  I'm not a gossip.  The point is that things like this should not be taken at face value.  Questions should always be asked about the provenance of images and whether they have been changed and how.  Ideally, a log should be kept somewhere on this Forum recording the source of each image and how it has been edited and by whom.  Maybe it's my suspicious mind, but when looking at sources, for me the golden rule is 'Trust nothing and no-one'.

I accept that innocent editing can occur for the purpose of enhancing features that need to be brought to people's attention, but my view is that if that happens, the original should be posted alongside it or linked to underneath it.

[Erik Narramore]

I think cross-contamination would be pretty easy, maybe inevitable.  On finding Sheila's body, the first and immediate priority would be to safe the rifle and an ABC check on Sheila (and June) in the hope they might be revived.  It's not difficult to see that Sheila's body could have been moved, maybe off the bed, and/or there would be a transfer of blood.  It's also not difficult to imagine that officers may have perfectly innocently omitted this information from initial statements because it wasn't seen as important at the time.

[Erik Narramore]

Didn't Vanezis say in his report that Sheila had no injuries of significance?  Those don't look like blood marks.  How could he miss something so fundamental?  But it needs an opinion from a forensic pathologist and probably the pathologist would require a photographic expert to verify the authenticity of the images.

I would say the smearing you see around the upper gunshot wound is approximately where somebody might check for the carotid pulse and so probably was caused by a police officer.

[Erik Narramore]

Wounds can be missed and overlooked, even by experienced detectives, crime scene officers and pathologists.

I have to say, I am not entirely sure which photographs you are talking about.  A supporter of Jeremy's did send me a link, but that was a general link to an entire thread, so I am at a disadvantage in this discussion as I am not clear what wounds precisely are being referred to.  It would be really helpful to see the images we are talking about.

However, if I am right, I think the Campaign Team are talking about cuts to her arm.  If so, those wounds would have been relatively minor in nature (the key point for the defence is not the severity of the wounds, but the type, location and number of them), and these wounds would have been covered or obscured by dried blood and so maybe for that reason not reported initially at the scene.  It is easy to miss cuts and abrasions if slight or minor.  I think an honest pathologist could quite easily have missed such evidence.

[Erik Narramore]

Peter Vanezis agreed to be pathologist even though he'd been ignored and not called to the scene, which means he was leant on from the start.  He was basically presented with a narrative and confirmed it.
He then changed his mind when another narrative took hold.

Anybody can be manipulated for someone else's agenda in the right circumstances, and they needn't be 'leant on'.

[Erik Narramore]

It is possible a pathologist could miss minor but significant wounds such as cuts and abrasions.  When all is said and done, a cut is just a break in the skin.  An experienced person could miss it quite easily.

Probably somebody should research what the process is for dealing with dried blood, but I would imagine that the pathologist's assistant would have cleaned all the blood away prior to post mortem on the basis that the photographs and crime scene notes captured what needed to be known about post-mortem blood distribution.

Now think about what happens when you receive a cut.  After the blood is cleaned away, the presence of the cut, if minor, won't always be obvious.

[Erik Narramore]

The questions I would ask for the defence are:

1. Are the original crime scene photographs available for inspection?  Preferably this should be reproduction from the negatives.

2. Is an alternative expert forensic interpretation of these originals possible?  For instance, is there a pathological expert who can offer an opinion on whether the photographs show unrecorded wounds?

[Erik Narramore]

Jeremy Bamber's defense barrister did say the blood on Sheila's arm are bloodstains from the neck wounds.

But I'm sceptical about that view.

[Erik Narramore]

Assuming I am looking at the right photographs, I am at the point that I think it is possible there are overlooked wounds due to the pattern of the blood.  A pathologist could have missed this, as the blood may have been washed away prior to examination and any traces of such wounds could have been slight and not readily susceptible to the eye.

But I am not sure and I also do not know how this can be established one way or the other without a body to re-examine.  Essentially, it seems to be a matter of photographic interpretation by a forensic expert or pathologist - similar to the scenario that led to the MacDonell report.  We do not have access to the original photographs or negatives for re-production and examination.  But I assume the defence team do.

[Erik Narramore]

Coroners serve a judicial function and don't normally examine bodies.  (The term 'coroner' has a very different meaning in British English to elsewhere - in Britain, the roles of coroner and forensic pathologist are distinct).

Any police officers present, both at the crime scene and prior to or during post-mortem, could - I agree - have examined the body, but remember that any cuts would have been obscured by blood at this time.

Part of the answer to all this will be to research post-mortem procedures, as it's not clear who would and should have seen what and when.  It could be that the only person who saw Sheila's cleaned corpse prior to post-mortem identification by Julie Mugford was the pathologist.  Julie Mugford would not have been paying special attention to minor cuts.

I think a pathologist could miss minor cuts, but I am not a pathologist.  It needs an expert to consider the photographs and, to the extent possible, give an opinion.

[Erik Narramore]

I am happy to maintain that the photograph I saw of Sheila's right hand does appear to show wounds - though the usual caveats must apply, including that I am not a pathologist or forensic photographer.

I think one problem the defence have is that if you say Sheila suffered wounds that indicate a fight, you are then also saying that Nevill did not overcome her.  Remember that the blood evidence indicates that June was confined to the bed and the area immediately around the bed, so a fight between June and Sheila seems unlikely.  It would have to be Nevill.

One way out of that is to posit that June was not shot in bed after all and the bullet hole in the pillow was from a missed bullet.  But how do you explain the blood on June's side of the bed?

Couldn't the prosecution argue that any wounds to Sheila were more probably suffered in a struggle with Jeremy?