What has always puzzled me is the x-ray of the bullet in Sheila Caffell's neck. If PV20 was the bullet shown in Court, why does it look fragmented into several widely-spaced pieces in the radiograph rather than almost whole. The charm on her necklace shows up as solid and in one piece so why not the bullet?
A standard Eley subsonic hollow-point weighs 40 grains and PV20 weighed roughly 60% of that.
http://www.eley.co.uk/en/ammunition/subsonic-hollow/
Any thoughts on this, scipio?
There is an assumption that all that appear to be foreign are parts of the bullet. That is not necessarily the case. For all we know parts are from her broken vertebrae or something they used on her body. The way to figure out what they are is to look in and out of the body at the areas where you see anomolies. By observation you try to determine what they are. Some bones have more density than others and some bone fragments end up being blotches. In some instances it is from an error other times from something left on a body and sometimes natural. You need someone to read an xray but also look at the body and be aware of the condition to find out. There are lots of different variables that come into play.
Another issue is that you can't see how fat something is. What if one object is 10mm fat but something else is only 2mm fat though they look almost the same side in diameter across when looking at one angle? Obviously the mass of the fatter object will be much greater.
Nevill's xray showed what seemed to be fragments in his abdomen but none could not be located either because they were not actually there and the anomalies were something else or Vanezis did not dig enough.
You need to consult with the people who took the xray and insepected th ebody to assess exactly what was seen.
Could one blotch account for 60% of a bullet and the remaining ones account for the rest? Postentially yes because the mass is not simply demonstrated by the diameter of one side. Showing Vanezis the exhibit and having him deny that is what he pulled out of Sheila is how you establish there was some sort of switch.
In the meantime the whole notion they had to switch bullets because police had shot her or because the extended relatives had shot her is ridiculous. There is no rational motivation for any swapping let alone did they try proving it the way they need to.
My understanding is he was alive (might still be today) and could have been asked about the exhibit but the defense failed to do so (most likely because they knew he would say it is the bullet he pulled out). That is a real argument you bring to a court if you want to prevail:
1) here is a xray we did no see because it was not disclosed.
2) Had it been disclosed we would have confronted Vanezis at trial with the exhibit and asked if the exhibit is the bullet he removed from Sheila
3) Here is a statement from Vanezis saying he doesn't recognize the exhibit as having been removed by him and would have testified to such at tiral if asked.
That is what you bring to an appeal court to convince them that you have a basis to suggest there was a swapped bullet and try to get them to overlook that you failed to challenge it at trial.