According to the pathologist SC was slightly on her right side and partially sitting up. See point 5:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=199.0;attach=672
But this seems to be based on the blood staining to her nightie and arm and I guess assumes she was not moved at SoC prior to being removed from WHF.
This is a perfect example of not only how lazy Vanezis was but also thoughtless. He never tried to plug in all the evidence together in making his assessment of whether she committed suicide. He left ti to other experts to deal with most of the evidence other than the physical injuries.
You keep referring to post conviction assessments (brought out during the 2002 appeal. What those assessments assert is that Sheila was shot while seated propped up against something, her neck was bent to her right side (the wounds were also to the right) and the blood flowed down her right shoulder/breast area. Shortly after dying she was dragged flat and then the blood flow changed. It ran down the side of her arm and down the side of her neck pooling next to her and the Bible was finally placed in such pool of blood.
Vanezis said she was seated during the first shot and remained so after thus resulting in the blood going down her right side. Moreover he recognized she put her palm/wrist to her wound resulting in blood leaking down her forearm. Where Vanezis differed from the argument made at the appeal is that he claimed she fell flat immediately after the second shot from the force of the shot while the post conviction experts said she was dragged flat.
Vanezis screwed up. He failed to recognize that Sheila would have to be propped against something in order to remain partially seated after the first shot. he simply pretended that she was sitting in the middle of the floor and either shot herself or was shot then in the same location shot herself again or was shot again then because she died she fell flat and the blood flow changed.
Because he failed to recognize she was propped against something he failed to recognize she was dragged flat subsequently. The blood lab experts failed to consider the issue either.
If their failure had been due to a lack of scientific knowledge about these issues and new science available in 2002 led to the government experts recognizing this then it would have been able to be used in the appeal. But it wasn't new science it was simply negligence on the part of Vanezis and the others that they failed to recognize the significance of this. The know-how existed in 1985 they simply didn't failed to properly consider it.
They also failed to properly consider that the Bible being placed in a pool of blood that formed after her death proves someone else had to be there to place it in such pool of blood. This was the second new argument made on appeal. It too was rejected for the same reason- the experts had enough know-how to realize this if they properly evaluated the scene. That they failed to do so until after the conviction is their tough luck.
Let's contrast this with DNA. They didn't know about DNA at the tie so reasonably didn't have the ability to do NA testing. If DNA testing were to prove Bamber the killer such could be used on appeal to argue against his release but the only things the jury did not consider that the government can use are things the government reasonably could not have known about at the time of trial.
The blood flow issues are pretty basic either they dropped the ball or they intentionally chose not to use such argument because they felt they didn't need to or felt it would muddy up the works. There are no documents that suggest the prosecution experts realized this issue so most likely it is the former but either way it can't be used.
The same exact rules apply to the defense. Things they could and should have known about they can't use on appeal. Only things they reasonably could not have known about can be used. Many times on TV you see lawyers playing games and objections being made and sustained. On these shows it is to try to poison the jury with ideas that they can't really make. While that exists to a limited extent in real life the main reason lawyers object is to preserve an issue for appeal. You can only appeal on arguments you make and lose in court. So many maneuverings are to get things in the record. If you fail to make an argument and get it in the record you can't make it on appeal except where you reasonably had no ability to know about such argument.
This is where making up that the Bible was lost comes into play. The defense made up that he Bible was lost to say they had no ability to examine it and thus reasonably had no ability to figure out what page it had been opened to. Since it was a trial exhibit they could indeed have looked at it had they wanted to the court held and thus their argument was invalid. But they tried...
