Is this for David's "fresh evidence breakthrough?"
No. The purpose of this thread is to show David is wrong with his interpretation of what constitutes fresh evidence.
David's so-called breakthrough has been referred to on the forums as 'forensic evidence breakthrough'. IMO there's nothing remotely forensic or evidential about it and it would struggle to break through a paper bag.
I will not reduce myself to David's level in betraying a confidence but of course it's always there as ammo in the stockpile if needed. I will say most of David's theories involve Dr Vanezis acting incompetently and/or negligently and/or perverting the course of justice. These theories include:
- David's forensic evidence breakthrough
- A recently (in relation to date of trial) emerged image of SC's foot containing what David considers are bloodstains which Dr Vanezis overlooked
- Images of victims sustaining defence wounds which Dr Vanezis overlooked
There's of course no evidence for this. Even if the images are authentic it is likely lay people are simply misinterpreting dried bloodstains. Dr Vanezis didn't view the victims at soc but saw soc images and obviously saw victims in person during autopsies. Prof Knight for the defence viewed soc images and autopsy images. Neither disagreed other than over the burn marks to NB's back. Therefore if David is correct Dr Vanezis and Prof Knight must be wrong. Both men have/had long careers with unblemished records and spent years studying and training. It really gets silly.
David will probably be thinking what makes me right about the QC's being wrong. Difference is pathologists are experts in a specific field based on scientific principles. QC's are simply advocates attempting to sell a narrative to 12 jurors about subject matters that, in the main, they've received little or no formal education/training in. Yes QC's hopefully understand the law. But they are not experts in pathology or ballistics or blood serology or DNA etc, etc. A QC needs to tease out what's relevant, sew together the strands to form a coherent narrative and pictures for jurors. IMO the scope for something going wrong is significant especially if the experts are sub-standard eg the generalists at FSS.
