And you're bias free?
Anthony Arlidge QC for the prosecution asked Dr Vanezis:
Q: That is not a blow from the outside? A: No
On one part of his statement he told the police officers that Aunt June Bamber had black eye and when Jeremy had asked her to account for it she had apparently said, I hit a post.
Jeremy told the officers that he thought that there was more to her injury but Aunt June Bamber was not going to tell him.
I formed the opinion that Jeremy was insinuating that Sheila had hit Aunt June Bamber. I asked the police officers if my Aunt June Bamber had a black eye but they couldn't tell me.
If JB told officers that June sustained a black eye prior to 7th Aug then why isn't it in his WS?
Mike claims police edited it out JB's WS but Mike is a moron and as you said a proven liar so anything he states means squat.
Yes I am bias free and as such I understand that witness statements only contain points that police and the witness think are most significant. Why do you think that it is preferred to tape witness interviews? Police notes often miss things. After someone is questioned and they finally write up a statement they don't put in everything they told police, they can't even remember everything they told police nor will police remember everything they said only the things the police consider most significant. Notes can even include misinterpretations which is another reason to tape questioning. Taping is a double edged sword. It protects you from police lying about what you said but also prevents you from lying and denying things you said that you regret.
It is not credible that AE made up that Jeremy said June had a black eye prior to the murders. Police didn't consider that too significant because it would not be related to the murders directly. While AE didn't make it up it is possible for her to be wrong. It is possible for police to have told Jeremy June had a black eye and to have asked if it predated the murders or not. Since they didn't consider the black eye important as to identifying the killer I doubt they did that though. If he said outright that he saw his sister punch his mother and give her a black eye then they would have had reason to note that because that would support their vision at the time of Sheila being violent. AE said she got the impression he was trying to imply Sheila could have given June the black eye not stating he witnessed such. That could have gone over the head of police or police could have understood the
implication but decided it was not worth writing down since it was not supported by anything.
I try to evaluate based on what is most likely true. I don't judge based on bias.
Being free of bias means I am not wed to a position for the sake of the position.
Vanezis felt the black eye was internal because bullets can cause such damage. A body is not hollow. When a bullet passes through a body the material it is going through doesn't magically vanish it is pushed to the sides of the bullet. That material is thus pushed into other material. So a bullet to the side of the head can push material towards the front of the head (where the eyes are) as well as towards the brain. Does a bullet through the head always cause black eye(s)? No it can but doesn't always. Can someone get a black eye form being punched without there being significant damage to the skin that demonstrates it was caused by an external injury/ Yes there are not always abrasions to the skin. Can a doctor assess that a black eye was caused by a bullet though it was actually caused externally? Yes. The way doctors operate is if they see no proof it is external but have an internal cause that could have caused it they will say it most likely was internally caused. Most likely it was but is still possible it was externally caused. I mention the possibility for the sake of accuracy.
I don't know whether June got out of bed before Jeremy left the room or not. It is possible she got up or possible she didn't. If she did get up when Jeremy was in the room then she would have been blocking Jeremy's exit and he would have been blocking her path to the other side of the bed. That certainly sets the stage for a physical struggle. He could have punched or pushed her without leaving any obvious damage that could be attributed to such. We can't just say that because there was no obvious damage that had to be associated with a struggle that there was no physical confrontation of any kind and that she had to get out of bed after he left. We have no way to know. Accepting the limitations the evidence can provide is not being biased but rather being realistic.
Let's pretend Jeremy didn't clean his clothing, police had seized it before he could remove it and had some spatter from June on his clothing indicating he had an physical altercation with her. Even though she had no obvious damage from such altercation would it disprove the altercation happened? She was bleeding from numerous gunshot wounds hence why her blood would get on him during an altercation. We are always working with limitations. Only Jeremy knows whether she got up and actively went towards him or was in his way as he tried to exit. He could have fired all the shots while they were in bed then ran away.
Most fail to consider he possibility of him running away before the parents got up and think they got up and Nevill left with Jeremy chasing him. That requires Nevill to have gotten past Jeremy and Jeremy past June. I don't say that out of bias but because it is what would be true if they were right.
I personally think that Jeremy ran away to get more ammo when he realized the gun was empty and his parents not dead and that Nevill followed him to try to prevent him from reloading. I doubt Nevill fought his way past Jeremy and bouncing off walls he managed to get to the kitchen before Jeremy could catch him and beat him to death. While I see this as most likely what happened it doesn't mean I am right there is still a chance that there was a confrontation in the bedroom and that Nevill got away and went to try to arm himself. Only Jeremy knows for sure. All we can do is posit the various possibilities, not say for sure which happened.