CAL's book P196:
"Her stomach [SC] contained 'partially digested food'. Vanezis made no reference to the stomach contents of the other victims, leading to speculation that Sheila might have eaten later than her family. 'I'm sure they all had some food in their stomachs - I noted it for her and took it as read with the others.'
The fact he doesn't mention something doesn't seem to count for much.
There was no need to mention the food in the stomachs. In describing the wounds it would be not only pertinent but extremely pertinent if a muzzle imprint had been found. The defense had heir own experts and none of them found any evidence of a muzzle imprint. A muzzle imprint only happens when there is a hard contact wound so had he noticed it then he would have assessed the lower wound to be a hard contact wound as a result.
P195 he seems to contradict himself:
"The lower wound on the right side of Sheila's throat showed bruising and residue marks and was the first to have been innflicted".
"The upper wound, just beneath Sheila's chin, was smallerwith firearm reside and slight bruising."
The above from 85/86.
CAL's interview:
"Both injuries were 'very loose' contact wounds, lacking the associated grazing and distribution of residue within the skin from full contact wounds".
Oh Scipio help a damsel in distress 
He contradicted himself by saying both were contact wounds though he assessed at the time tha tthe lower wound was a near contact wound.
He spoke to CAL how many years later. His memory is faulty which is why accounts long after are treated with so much skepticism. If he was given all the documents to review then asked about them to see what he remembers that is one thing but when you ask someone 30 years later to just recall everything it is invariably not going to end up fully accurate. Look what happened to PC West, he testified a year later and he already could not remember so much. His assessments at the time are treated as the record.
I know you are asking what he is talking about. The residue he is referring to is from the powder. In a hard contact wound the powder has no where to go except inside the wound and the powder will be inside the entrance wound itself. It will form a ring around the inside of the wound and also often be found in surrounding tissue inside because all the powder expelled from the weapon goes inside.
The gases will tear the skin in a hard contact wound that is also something he says was lacking. In a loose contact some of the powder residue will ring the outside edge of the entrance wound and some powder and gases will escape through the sides so it won't all be propelled into the wound and won't be propelled as deep into the wound. With a near contact wound there is a dirt ring around the outside of the entrance wound. It will extend further outside than the ring from a loose contact wound. Once you get beyond near contact the powder is much less condensed and instead of a nice tight ring you get what looks like tiny grain. The further away the shot the more dispersed this will be until finally being too far away for any of it to hit.
To the naked eye from the outside a distant shot and hard contact shot look very similar because there is no powder obvious in either case. The distant shot no powder reached. The hard contact shot it is all inside so you need to look at the inner tissue.
So Vanezis is saying that the powder distribution is different than if it were a hard contact wound and the bruising is different. The bruising that existed outside the entrance wound was from the bullet aka a bullet abrasion as opposed to the kind of tearing you get from a hard contact wound.
Poke your finger into a fatty area of your body. Notice how not only touches the very tip of your finger but beds around your finger so that it touches some of the side as well. It does this will a bullet except a bullet is spinning so it bruises the skin as it touches. So the very outside of the entrance wound will have abraded skin. In a contact wound the bullet doesn't do this because it is fired directly against the skin so the surrounding skin doesn't get a chance to touch. He obviously forgot that he assessed the lower wound was a near contact wound.
Since a muzzle imprint can only happen with a hard contact wound and he said they were not hard contact wounds that means it is not possible for Fowler's claims of the lower wound having a muzzle imprint to be possible. Since the photos show no muzzle imprint and Vanazis didn't assess there to be a muzzle imprint it is a nonstarter really.
Dr V:
"You never know what you're going to find and we didn't see a large number of firearm cases at the time, so a ballistics expert was essential. We don't always take gunshot residues at post-motem and I could have deferred to him [sexist] on that issue, as well as the range of fire, the calibre of the bullet etc".
VERY WORRYING
I have repeatedly noted his expertise with guns was practically nonexistent and his expertise with gunshot wounds somewhat limited which is why he didn't recognize the butt of the rifle caused Nevill's injuries save the cracking of his skull but recognizing the butt cracked his skull is no big feat a monkey could recognize that.
In this case Vanezis wrote his report then the ballistic expert made his assessments after. If the expert made his assessments right away the report would have been a lot better at some things. For instance the angle of the lower shot being an angle that doesn't fit suicide. The ballistic experts reviewed the photos and his medical observations and basically agree with him with respect to the bullet wound assessments so there was no harm in that regard. They got lucky it was not more complex with multiple weapons and so forth.
