Venezis could not establish a time of death. You have no evidence to nail a time of death before 3am.
There is indeed evidence which proves she was killed before police arrived:
1) she was shot with a moderator that was subsequently put away
2) after she died and her blood pooled the Bible was placed in it
3) It any shots had been fired while police were present then the police would have heard them through the open window.
Furthermore, how do you explain the lack of post mortem hypostasis in the photos of Sheila taken after 9.30am?
1) The photos you are referring to are not high quality and worse don't show much of the body. There is no way to say whether any is present or not.
2) Furthermore post mortem hypostasis doesn't always develop. It is well documented that it doesn't develop in all people. The MOST COMMON reason for it not developing is when a victim hemorrhages. She didn't merely suffer from significant external bleeding there was much more extensive internal bleeding.
Bottom line you once again made up your own bogus rules - in this instance that she would have to have developed post mortem hypostasis unless she died shortly before police took the photos. You also make up that you can tell for sure she has none based on photos where most of her body is covered and the quality is not great. Others already previously dismantled this BS including Caroline. Rehashing the same disproved nonsense just renders you a copy of Mike.
From Julies Testimony she seems to be implying that the record of the call would be established via the redial feature on the phone at WHF. That's the only way it could be recorded.
Proving the last call was to Goldhanger would fail to prove the time it was made. It could have been made at 11:30 before going to bed.
Dr Fowler and Philip Boyce examined the autopsy photographs. Saying they just read Vanezis autopsy papers and misinterpreted his words is rubbish you made up.
No, what I said was they asserted the wound had a muzzle imprint on the basis of Vanezis's words. That they looked at the photos is meaningless because the photos demonstrated no marks they could identify as muzzle imprints. They relied upon Vanezis description of the wound to assert there was a muzzle imprint saying the description sounded like an imprint to them. That description though clearly is a bullet abrasion and dirt ring.
If this evidence is so "pathetic" why did the CCRC fail to find a counter expert to challenge it? If this evidence is so "pathetic" why do you have make things up to refute it?
They already had an experts who refuted it- those who testified at the trial. Vanezis said it was a bullet abrasion. Their speculation that he was wrong and tha tit was a muzzle imprint based on the sound of it means nothing at all. There is no need to rebut unsupported speculation that can't be the basis for overturning a verdict.
Why don't you post the full rejection by the CCRC so we can look in detail and the explanation for the rejection and then you can look like an even bigger fool.
Once again, you peddle un-scientific falsehoods.
You are the one doing such and as usual project your flaws onto others rather than face reality.
It is well known that gunshot wounding can produce fine droplets of blood spattered in a forward direction. Under certain circumstances blood droplets can also be propelled backwards in a direction against the line of fire. Although the phenomenon of back spatter of blood is most commonly seen in contact gunshot wounds of the head
Stephens, B. and Allen, T., "Back Spatter of Blood from Gunshot Wounds—Observations and Experimental Simulation," Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 28, No. 2, 1983, pp. 437-439,
The absence of any blood or tissue from Nicholas Caffell in the moderator. Is because the silencer was in the cupboard all night long.
That description fails in any way to support your argument that Nicholas' blood would have to be in the moderator. All it says is that it is most commonly seen with gunshots to the head. In no way does it suggest that all or most shots to the head result in back spatter.
In the meantime it is wrong, it is commonly seen in several locations. Moreover it doesn't speak to what area of the head or discuss the caliber. We are talking about a 22LR bullet and they rarely result in drawback with shots to the head.
In the meantime the wound was not necessarily a contact shot it could have been a near contact.
Post a source that says 22LR shots to the head always result in drawback which is what you are arguing. You won't find any source that states such because it is fictional.
1) With a rifle, how can it not be a contact wound? you cannot hold such weapon at a distance then shoot yourself.
Yes you can, you simply can't hold it too far away given arms are only so long.
2) Anyone can read a text book and learn about it. I have, you have. what's to preclude them from such knowledge?
You are reading books on the internet and grossly distorting everything they say. Despite much more extensive resources than existed at the time there still is limited material about drawback. You never would have heard of drawback let alone be researching it if not for the fact that experts discussed its relevance in this trial. You did simply read a book and encounter a discussion about drawback. You looked up the issue because someone else told you about it. Most of the police didn't even know about it only the lab did.
Just saying well maybe they read a book about it is worthless speculation you need to prove they did read a book about it or present other evidence that proves that they knew about it but can't.
3) They had Sheila's blood in their possession. They took her underwear stained with menstrual blood back with them when they found the silencer.
Who is they? AE threw her panties in the garbage and took the garbage bag back with her but ultimately threw it away.
In the meantime suggesting that dry blood on her panties was able to be liquefied so they could plant it in the moderator is stupid even for you.
I have shown you the extract from Dimao's book enough times. Another case of you ignoring forensic science.
From this post alone there are six forensic experts you stonewall due to your own stubborn refusal to admit you are wrong. Why did a deeper hole for yourself?
Nothing in his book supports any of your contentions. No where does he suggest that shots to the head always result in back spatter or drawback let alone suggest that all shots to the head with 22LRs do so. There is no proof for sure that anyone except Sheila suffered a contact wound. In the meantime if your claim had been true then it would require Nicolas' blood to be in the rifle but it wasn't nor was Sheila's. The family had no ability to doctor the rifle since it was never in their possession.
If they actually knew all about drawback and knew she suffered a contact wound that would have to result in drawback then they would know her blood would be in the rifle and that planting blood int he moderator would be futile because it would be proven planted by her blood being in the rifle.
You ignore what science actually states and make up your own rules to try to pretend that Jeremy is innocent. in your post you made up that all shots to the head result in drawback and rely on a quote that merely states the most common location to result in backspatter is the head. That doesn't assert the only location nor does it assert all shots to the head result in drawback. You ignore what is written and make up your own rules . you did the same thing with post mortem hypostasis. Back when you first made the argument you quoted from a source that stated outright that it doe snot always occur in all people and specifically listed hemorrhaging as a factor against it. Despite such you made up that it would have to occur in all people and made up that we can tell in the photos that Sheila doesn't exhibit any.