I despair sometimes of the rubbish posted on the Jeremy Bamber forum.

[Holly Goodhead]

Well, I hope your sleep wasn't unduly disturbed! The Smears!! There are finite -reasonable!!- possibilities. If we examine the extremities attached to the torso, the head is by far the heaviest -I once knew the ratio but I've forgotten it- and I'm quite convinced that the effect of the first shot -the physical shock of shattered vertebrae- would have been likely to have knocked it off it's perch, so to speak. It may have only slipped to the side but it's own weight would have forced it forward, possibly in a rolling motion? smearing the blood in the crease. It would have been necessary to lift it from that position to expose the area for the second shot. It seems to me that the obvious lifting point would be the chin -the head being dead weight, this couldn't have been accomplished with one finger- fingers coming into contact with the original wound would cause smears.

The first gsw caused a laceration to the external jagular which Dr Vanezis described as "more superficial" and lying in muscle.

[Myster]

I probably picked it up from my mum listening to Diddy David Hamilton on Radio 2  Is this part of your BDSM fantasy?

Nahh... Suzi Quatro is too masculine and can't sing, unlike my new girlfriend, lovely Ana Moura.

[Myster]

The first gsw caused a laceration to the external jagular which Dr Vanezis described as "more superficial" and lying in muscle.

u need fixing

[Myster]

Well as I said according to Prof Knight there's a momentary delay in blood presenting.  Assuming this was the case here, the rifle (with or without silencer) was already out of the way based on soc image.  So much for 'drawback'  &%+((£

Based on the pathological evidence SC was incapable of voluntary movement after the second immediately fatal gsw so would not have been capable of putting her hand up to the second wound.  Maybe after the first gsw she put her finger(s)/hand to the wound and transferred it to the second wound to identify the site.  This seems unlikely as I would expect to see a correpsonding smear elsewhere and I can't see one. 

SC's found location doesn't look right to me.  Why would her head fall to the left of the cabinet?  Surely it would fall straight back and end up wedged between her neck and the cabinet?  I think she was nearer the connecting door and moved by the raid team in their haste to check behind that door.   

The bloodstaining to the left (as I look at the image) looks to me as though it has dried and then cracked as the skin has expanded due to swelling - there's visible bruising to my eye at least.

The rifle was staged to make it look like suicide, therefore not surprising that the muzzle was poorly positioned away from her neck in attempting to make the rest of it balance on her body without falling off.

I agree the first wound hadn't been touched by SC, neither could the second. So someone or something else was responsible.

[Holly Goodhead]

Nahh... Suzi Quatro is too masculine and can't sing, unlike my new girlfriend, lovely Ana Moura.

Sounds like something to listen to sipping a bottle of Mateus 

[Holly Goodhead]

u need fixing

Oh no what now?  Have I got laying and lying the wrong way round? 

[Holly Goodhead]

The rifle was staged to make it look like suicide, therefore not surprising that the muzzle was poorly positioned away from her neck in attempting to make the rest of it balance on her body without falling off.

I agree the first wound hadn't been touched by SC, neither could the second. So someone or something else was responsible.

But how would we know how the rifle would fall without viewing numerous images of sucide victims by gsw's? 

No doubt a ballistics and bloodstain analyst could shed light on the matter.  The so-called expert evidence at trial was truly appalling in this regard.

[Myster]

Sounds like something to listen to sipping a bottle of Mateus 

Yep... they'd both taste good together.

[Myster]

But how would we know how the rifle would fall without viewing numerous images of sucide victims by gsw's? 

No doubt a ballistics and bloodstain analyst could shed light on the matter.  The so-called expert evidence at trial was truly appalling in this regard.

Not one iota as appalling as the ludicrous assumption by one or two ijuts on blue that Sheila's hand was cut, gouged or bleeding, when it's so obvious that they are simply dried up and disturbed streams of blood which came from her neck wounds. Dr Vanezis is no fool.

[Holly Goodhead]

Not one iota as appalling as the ludicrous assumption by one or two ijuts on blue that Sheila's hand was cut, gouged or bleeding, when it's so obvious that they are simply dried up and disturbed streams of blood which came from her neck wounds. Dr Vanezis is no fool.

I don't think I've seen the images under discussion but I think its most unlikely SC sustained any wounds not noted on the autopsy report:

- Why would Dr Vanezis note all manner of minor points such as stretch marks and nicotine stains and overlook cuts, gouges etc?  He even noted the dressed abrasion on SC's abdomen. 

- As Caroline has pointed out Dr Vanezis didn't make note of any cuts, gouges in his autopsy notes written during post mortem which kind of puts paid to Roch's theory that Dr Vanezis changed his autopsy to suit DCI Ainsley.  Why on earth would Dr Vanezis sing to DCI Ainsley's tune in any event?  If such a request was ever put to Dr Vanezis I've no doubt he would report him/her. 

- Numerous officers at soc observed SC along with Dr Craig.  6 police officers attended post mortem.  Prof Knight for the defence had access to all autopsy images.   

- There's no evidence any of the victims engaged in hand-to-hand fighting.  SC was stood at the foot of the bed in the master bedroom and shot June whilst she was in bed and getting out of either 5 or 6 times (6th wound may have been graze only).  NB appeared on the landing and SC turned her attention to him shooing NB twice in the face.  NB turned and SC followed shooting NB twice on the main staircase leading to the hall.  The pair ended up in the kitchen with NB severely injured and unable to defend himself.  SC beat NB with the rifle and shot him a further four times.  Meanwhile June moved around the bed, in an attempt to use the phone maybe, and was back at the main door when SC shot her twice in the head.  All the pathological and physical evidence at soc supports this. 

[APRIL]

The first gsw caused a laceration to the external jagular which Dr Vanezis described as "more superficial" and lying in muscle.

Do you drive a Juguar?

[Myster]

You'll come round eventually, Ms G... as they all do in the end. 

[Holly Goodhead]

Do you drive a Juguar?

I knew it didn't look right and even looked it up    Well this must mean I got laying right. 

I once had a boyfriend who was a design eng for Jaguar cars  &%+((£  I don't really like them but I like the Telsa S which looks like a Jag.  Does anyone have any experience of electric cars?  Whoops seriously off-topic. 

[Myster]

I knew it didn't look right and even looked it up    Well this must mean I got laying right. 

I once had a boyfriend who was a design eng for Jaguar cars  &%+((£  I don't really like them but I like the Telsa S which looks like a Jag.  Does anyone have any experience of electric cars?  Whoops seriously off-topic.

Tesla 

Experience?... yeah, loads with Scalextric.

[Holly Goodhead]

I don't think I've seen the images under discussion but I think its most unlikely SC sustained any wounds not noted on the autopsy report:

- Why would Dr Vanezis note all manner of minor points such as stretch marks and nicotine stains and overlook cuts, gouges etc?  He even noted the dressed abrasion on SC's abdomen. 

- As Caroline has pointed out Dr Vanezis didn't make note of any cuts, gouges in his autopsy notes written during post mortem which kind of puts paid to Roch's theory that Dr Vanezis changed his autopsy to suit DCI Ainsley.  Why on earth would Dr Vanezis sing to DCI Ainsley's tune in any event?  If such a request was ever put to Dr Vanezis I've no doubt he would report him/her. 

- Numerous officers at soc observed SC along with Dr Craig.  6 police officers attended post mortem.  Prof Knight for the defence had access to all autopsy images.   

- There's no evidence any of the victims engaged in hand-to-hand fighting.  SC was stood at the foot of the bed in the master bedroom and shot June whilst she was in bed and getting out of either 5 or 6 times (6th wound may have been graze only).  NB appeared on the landing and SC turned her attention to him shooing NB twice in the face.  NB turned and SC followed shooting NB twice on the main staircase leading to the hall.  The pair ended up in the kitchen with NB severely injured and unable to defend himself.  SC beat NB with the rifle and shot him a further four times.  Meanwhile June moved around the bed, in an attempt to use the phone maybe, and was back at the main door when SC shot her twice in the head.  All the pathological and physical evidence at soc supports this.

Can anyone think of a case in the UK where a pathologist has effectively deliberately altered the pathological evidence to bolster the prosecutions case?  Putting aside the immorality of such behaviour, which would hopefully be a hurdle too high for 99.9% of pathologists, if a pathologist was found guilty of what would amount to perverting the course of justice he/she would face a very lengthy prison sentence.