I despair sometimes of the rubbish posted on the Jeremy Bamber forum.

[Myster]

Can anyone think of a case in the UK where a pathologist has effectively deliberately altered the pathological evidence to bolster the prosecutions case?  Putting aside the immorality of such behaviour, which would hopefully be a hurdle too high for 99.9% of pathologists, if a pathologist was found guilty of what would amount to perverting the course of justice he/she would face a very lengthy prison sentence.     

Only the Blue Meanies need concern themselves with baloney like that, Holly... and one or two from the nether regions of the world who think every loser in jail is a miscarriage of justice.

[adam]

Can anyone think of a case in the UK where a pathologist has effectively deliberately altered the pathological evidence to bolster the prosecutions case?  Putting aside the immorality of such behaviour, which would hopefully be a hurdle too high for 99.9% of pathologists, if a pathologist was found guilty of what would amount to perverting the course of justice he/she would face a very lengthy prison sentence.     

I assume a pathologist would be struck off if caught giving false evidence.

[Holly Goodhead]

Only the Blue Meanies need concern themselves with baloney like that, Holly... and one or two from the nether regions of the world who think every loser in jail is a miscarriage of justice.

Incompetence and negligence are one thing (not that I'm suggesting Dr Vanezis was necessarily either) deliberately altering evidence to bolster the prosecutions case is something quite different. 

In the case of Ian Tomlinson it appears Dr Patel was incompetent and negligent as opposed to anything more sinister.  He was struck off and seems a world away from Dr Vanezis:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson

[Holly Goodhead]

I assume a pathologist would be struck off if caught giving false evidence.

I assume so yes.  Afaik Dr Vanezis is known internationally and has an unblemished record. 

http://www.petervanezis.com/

[Holly Goodhead]

Now David thinks his research renders Prof Knight's opinion obsolete.  Lol you couldn't make it up 

David what makes you think you can generalise about GSW's?  Surely calibre of firearm, ammo, wound site(s) and many other factors eg an individuals constitution make all cases unique? 

If you're saying 5 - 10 secs survival after multiple GSW's how do you account for post GSW movement by June and NB?

[Caroline]

Now David thinks his research renders Prof Knight's opinion obsolete.  Lol you couldn't make it up 

David what makes you think you can generalise about GSW's?  Surely calibre of firearm, ammo, wound site(s) and many other factors eg an individuals constitution make all cases unique? 

If you're saying 5 - 10 secs survival after multiple GSW's how do you account for post GSW movement by June and NB?

Apparently, he also missed (didn't notice) the cuts to Sheila's arm/hand even though he went into great detail about those on Nevill and mentioned old injuries on Sheila. No you couldn't make this up! 

[Holly Goodhead]

I assume so yes.  Afaik Dr Vanezis is known internationally and has an unblemished record. 

http://www.petervanezis.com/

Pathologists, and other such professionals, obviously train long and hard and to deviate from their 'code of practice' would go against everything they have trained for and represent.  Obviously one can never say never eg Harold Shipman!

[APRIL]

Pathologists, and other such professionals, obviously train long and hard and to deviate from their 'code of practice' would go against everything they have trained for and represent.  Obviously one can never say never eg Harold Shipman!

They seem to work on the assumption that because it's all happened before, in this case, it's all, without question, happened again....................but offer no feasible explanation why. 

[adam]

Pathologists, and other such professionals, obviously train long and hard and to deviate from their 'code of practice' would go against everything they have trained for and represent.  Obviously one can never say never eg Harold Shipman!

Pathologists will make mistakes. But to examine a whole body & not see scratches would not be one of them.

[Holly Goodhead]

Apparently, he also missed (didn't notice) the cuts to Sheila's arm/hand even though he went into great detail about those on Nevill and mentioned old injuries on Sheila. No you couldn't make this up! 

I'm not sure exactly what is being claimed?  I've read 27 'marks' (cuts, gouges and scratches) and 70?!  Do the claims relate to SC only or other victims?  Are these so-called marks outside or underneath victims' nightwear?

It just doesn't make any sense to me how these marks could fall under the radar for 3 decades along with Dr Vanezis perjuring himself and numerous others, including Dr Craig and Prof Knight who both supported the defence, effectively overlooking or turning a blind eye! 

[Holly Goodhead]

They seem to work on the assumption that because it's all happened before, in this case, it's all, without question, happened again....................but offer no feasible explanation why.

I can buy into the silencer fabricted and JM coerced and that's about it.  Either the silencer was fabricated or JB is guilty.  The idea that multiple others plotted against JB, *a country bumpkin, just doesn't ring true with me.

*By this I mean he wasn't a threat in any shape or form to the government eg a Julian Assange or Bradley/Chelsea Manning type figure so why would the state conspire on a grand scale to convict an innocent man?

[Myster]

"This life's dim windows of the soul.
Distorts the heavens from pole to pole.
And leads you to believe a lie.
When you see with, not through, the eye"

William Blake's pithy aphorism is so fitting for those who see what isn't there.

[Holly Goodhead]

It works both ways though as it is often claimed JB is a psychopath and yet we have no name to put to any professional making such a diagnosis. 

A recent post on Blue:

Thanks Jackie, I could probably write you a similar list about Bamber, but, you wouldn't want to believe that list.  I will start you off, do you believe what the defence psychiatrist said, "if ever there was a psychopath it's Jeremy Bamber". Do you believe what the psychopath said who worked at full Sutton, he's 100% guilty as hell.

He has professed his innocence ever since. However, the psychiatrist engaged by Bamber’s defence team said that his very real belief that he had not committed the murders was a prime reason for diagnosing him as a psychopath.
Concluding that he did kill his family and had suppressed the knowledge until it no longer existed, he added: ‘If ever there was a psychopath, it’s Jeremy Bamber.’

1.  Who was the defence psychiatrist who made this assessment?  Without the name of an appropriately qualified person it is meaningless. 

2.  Who was the "psychopath" who made the assessment at Full Sutton?  (I assume the poster meant psychiatrist).  Again without the name of an appropriately qualified person it is meaningless.

3.  I struggle with a qualified person using language like "he's guilty as hell".  Sounds more like the sort of language a layperson would use.  In fact DB used these very words:

http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/5034503.Jeremy_Bamber_is__as_guilty_as_hell__says_his_cousin/

4. A psychiatrist diagnosing a defendent/prisoner as a psychopath on the basis of protesting their innocence reminds me of the case of Stefan Kiszko:

"One forensic psychiatrist made a note of Kiszko suffering from "delusions of innocence"."  Although again no name of the forensic psychiatrist in the following link.  I will endeavour to find it elsewhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Lesley_Molseed#Life_inside

[Holly Goodhead]

And David no idea why you keep quoting Prof Knight who published an article pre JB's trial stating women almost never use firearms to commit suicide or words to this effect as though it is relevant to JB's case?  Most adult women don't suffer mental illness and those that do will in the main not visit family homes where firearms and ammunition are accessible.  It would probably take an actuary to apply statistical meaning to Prof Knight's statement in the context of JB's case, a fact JB's defence may not have addressed. 

If I said in the 1950's most car accidents involved male drivers would this mean female drivers were better drivers etc?  No it would mean most drivers were male therefore stastically they had more accidents as they spent more time on roads behind the wheels.     

[Holly Goodhead]

Jan and Steve_uk regular contributors to the Blue forum completely oblivious to JB's blood group:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=260.0;attach=844

Steve_uk see me for some detention and punishment 

Jan you need to up your game otherwise you will remain on the bench 

Seriously do you guys read the docs?  You've both made in excess of 8k posts and no idea of JB's blood group.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8537.msg407603.html#msg407603