Where's the evidence the prosecution looked into this at trial?
I just posted the appeal transcript that makes reference to it.
It should have been something the defence brought up at trial and just further evidence of a poor defence at trial and appeal hearings. An appeal point should include 'poor defence' at trial and appeal hearings.
You are saying the defence should have raised the issue of Sheila's dead body moving. In-front of the trial Jury while the prosecution decided not to even play the card and keep shtoom about it? As part of a defence strategy to persuade a jury that Sheila committed suicide? That would be serious malpractice if you ask me. That's insane!
The prosecution never brought it forward and thus the defence have nothing to argue against. Nor would the defence raise the issue on their initiative. Because it does not help them at all.
We can only speculate why the prosecution never brought this forward but I can narrow it down to two most likely reasons.
A) The opinion from Vanezis didn't favour the prosecution case
or
B) They knew that by introducing it they risked the possibility of the defence cross examining the firearms unit etc on the issue and it would open a can worms and backfire.
Take your pick. Whatever the answer not much we can do now.
You have been advised numerous times by just about everyone on both forums that Dr Craig was not tasked with counting gsw's. He only listed 1 gsw per victim despite the fact all sustained multiple gsw's. His role was to certify death not to count gsw's. How could he do so when all except NB were prone? How would he know if victims sustained gsw's to their undersides without disturbing them? No one is disputing SC sustained 2 gsw's.
The only person I know of who defends Dr Craig is you.
In a statement where he is asked to describe what happened that morning
"
I saw only one gunshot wound at that stage" - Dr Craig.
Why didn't he see the other gunshot would that was right infront of him? Because he is not a competent or reliable witness.
Why did he feel this was important enough to warrant a mention in the statement? Because as he recalls it in his mind he only saw one gunshot wound. And with retrospect knowing she had two wounds that he should have observed, to him that was not there. Hence he felt it was important to mention.
Dr Craigs sloppy and negligent work has only resulted in people thinking the police shot Sheila the second time by accident while moving the rifle on her chest. His evidence should be thrown out en masse.
Expert opinion begs to differ:
Forensic Scientist Martyn Ismail
518. To decide whether we considered that the interests of justice required that we heard Mr Ismail's evidence, we first had regard to the evidence that it was said that he could give. From the blood staining he concluded that following the second and fatal shot Sheila Caffell was lying almost flat on her back with her head propped against a bedside cabinet. For her then to slide to be found in the position depicted in the photographs would have required the downward force to be greater than the friction of her body against the floor. In his opinion this simply was not possible as there would only be the weight of the head providing the downward force. Therefore he concluded that an additional force would have been necessary. It could not have come from Sheila Caffell since the second shot would have been instantly fatal and thus she must have been moved by someone else, for example with her legs being pulled. He also considered that the weight and the friction between her skin and her nightdress was likely to have been less than the weight and friction between the nightdress and the carpet. Therefore, he would expect movement of the body within the nightdress rather than the body and clothing sliding together across the carpet. He pointed out that the photographs demonstrated this effect at the back of the nightdress with the nightdress staying rucked up in its original position. However the front of the nightdress had not demonstrated this effect. Accordingly Mr Ismail concluded that the nightdress had been pulled down after Sheila Caffell slid into her final position. Since on the evidence, she was dead by this stage, Mr Ismail concluded that some one else had arranged her nightdress.
http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html
A/PS Woodcock's WS:
"I was aware that Sheila Bamber was lying flat on her back with her head slightly raised as it was against a bedside locker".
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=166.0
SoC image of SC - viewer discretion advised
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sheila+caffell+scene+of+crime&rlz=1C1CHBD_en-GBGB782GB782&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwicmL3vhq7aAhXKC8AKHZvBCA0QsAQIJg&biw=1217&bih=577#imgrc=T2Z-5wdxyrX9RM:
Mr Ismail's evidence was not sucessfully submitted into evidence for reasons already mentioned. As a result Mr Ismail was not called to testify at the appeal hearing for cross examination. Nor did the defence need to hire a counter expert to challeneg Mr Ismalis evidence at the appeal hearing.
Mr Ismali's opinion (based purley on photos) is inadmissible and thus had not been scrutinized nor has a counter expert opinion been pursued. We dont know how reliable this evidence is. And its not worth arguing about since its been done and dusted at the appeal allready. Unless you plan on building a time machine?
From a legal point of view this evidence is not part of the prosecution case. There is nothing to challenge. When it comes to debating on a forum and people using Mr Ismail's evidence to advance their own opinions on the case then thats a different matter all together.
