UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Jeremy Bamber and the callous murder of his father, mother, sister and twin nephews. Case effectively CLOSED by CCRC on basis of NO APPEAL REFERRAL. => Topic started by: Holly Goodhead on September 11, 2017, 09:31:46 AM
-
No IMO.
The idea that Dr Vanezis overlooked, for whatever reason(s) numerous defense wounds is without any foundation whatsoever. I accept his autopsy notes and final report contain some ambiguities about blood stains on SC's hands but this could be simply down to what is meant by hand? Eg fingers, palms or wrist? I think his trial testimony clarifies the position and will check later.
As we know he appears very thorough documenting unrelated points such as SC having a tampon inserted, breast implants/scars, stretch marks and nicotine stains. The idea he would then overlook numerous defense wounds as claimed by 'supporters' just doesn't hold water IMO.
-
Here David suggests Dr Vanezis mistook wounds caused by fingernails for wounds caused by a linear object. David then quotes from a forensic text book authored by Prof Knight. Yep that's right Prof Kinght who acted for the defense at trial and fact checked all documents and images.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8526.msg410256.html#msg410256
There's of course nothing wrong with questioning expert opinion but frankly I think this is taking it a step too far.
David are you able to identity the author of the letter/submission to the CCRC? Would it by any chance be Paul Martin the solicitor connected to convicted fraudster Giovanni DeStefano?
-
No IMO.
The idea that Dr Vanezis overlooked, for whatever reason(s) numerous defense wounds is without any foundation whatsoever. I accept his autopsy notes and final report contain some ambiguities about blood stains on SC's hands but this could be simply down to what is meant by hand? Eg fingers, palms or wrist? I think his trial testimony clarifies the position and will check later.
As we know he appears very thorough documenting unrelated points such as SC having a tampon inserted, breast implants/scars, stretch marks and nicotine stains. The idea he would then overlook numerous defense wounds as claimed by 'supporters' just doesn't hold water IMO.
No need for any IMO... it only holds water to one or two cranks on blue. Vanezis didn't even miss a piddling plaster, for crying out loud!
-
No IMO.
The idea that Dr Vanezis overlooked, for whatever reason(s) numerous defense wounds is without any foundation whatsoever. I accept his autopsy notes and final report contain some ambiguities about blood stains on SC's hands but this could be simply down to what is meant by hand? Eg fingers, palms or wrist? I think his trial testimony clarifies the position and will check later.
As we know he appears very thorough documenting unrelated points such as SC having a tampon inserted, breast implants/scars, stretch marks and nicotine stains. The idea he would then overlook numerous defense wounds as claimed by 'supporters' just doesn't hold water IMO.
The very worrying issue for me was that he was not afforded the opportunity to inspect the bodies in situ BEFORE they were moved. Dr Vanezis makes reference to this in his report. A lesson learned possibly?
-
The very worrying issue for me was that he was not afforded the opportunity to inspect the bodies in situ BEFORE they were moved. Dr Vanezis makes reference to this in his report. A lesson learned possibly?
What was the protocol then & now ?
I'm sure Vanezis would have preferred to inspect the bodies under lab conditions. I don't see the pathologists on CSI or NICS going to the crime scenes.
-
What was the protocol then & now ?
I'm sure Vanezis would have preferred to inspect the bodies under lab conditions. I don't see the pathologists on CSI or NICS going to the crime scenes.
It is preferable in cases of doubt that the pathologist visit the murder scene before the bodies are removed. Sheila pre removal looked completely different to what Vanezis was initially presented with.
-
No need for any IMO... it only holds water to one or two cranks on blue. Vanezis didn't even miss a piddling plaster, for crying out loud!
Oh yes I forgot about the "small graze" to the abdomen covered by a "dressing". I wonder why Rivlin didn't raise this at trial?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=199.0;attach=670
-
What was the protocol then & now ?
I'm sure Vanezis would have preferred to inspect the bodies under lab conditions. I don't see the pathologists on CSI or NICS going to the crime scenes.
Dr Vanezis produced a statement dated 12th Nov 86 where he states in the future if any doubts exist about the circumstances of death consideration should be given for a pathologist to attend the scene.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=206.0;attach=744
Surely these things are set out in manuals: police or role of Home Office pathologist?
-
The problem was that there was no doubt in the head honcho's mind of the culprit, so an onsite pathologist wasn't necessary.
-
Oh yes I forgot about the "small graze" to the abdomen covered by a "dressing". I wonder why Rivlin didn't raise this at trial?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=199.0;attach=670 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=199.0;attach=670)
Errrm... because it had nothing to do with the shootings.
-
Dr Vanezis produced a statement dated 12th Nov 86 where he states in the future if any doubts exist about the circumstances of death consideration should be given for a pathologist to attend the scene.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=206.0;attach=744
Surely these things are set out in manuals: police or role of Home Office pathologist?
In an ideal world many things are possible. Could it be that DCI Taff Jones used his discretion? Did police not call the pathologist out because they thought it was a cut and dried case?
-
Errrm... because it had nothing to do with the shootings.
How do we know?
-
In an ideal world many things are possible. Could it be that DCI Taff Jones used his discretion? Did police not call the pathologist out because they thought it was a cut and dried case?
DCI Jones wasn't in charge, Chief Sup Harris was and he arrived at soc much earlier than DCI Jones.
Maybe 32 years ago senior officers used more discretion. Whereas today things are perhaps more procedural due in part to the potential of the various parties getting sued if things go wrong.
-
No IMO.
The idea that Dr Vanezis overlooked, for whatever reason(s) numerous defense wounds is without any foundation whatsoever. I accept his autopsy notes and final report contain some ambiguities about blood stains on SC's hands but this could be simply down to what is meant by hand? Eg fingers, palms or wrist? I think his trial testimony clarifies the position and will check later.
As we know he appears very thorough documenting unrelated points such as SC having a tampon inserted, breast implants/scars, stretch marks and nicotine stains. The idea he would then overlook numerous defense wounds as claimed by 'supporters' just doesn't hold water IMO.
Just had a look at the trial testimony and the following was said:
Q: I think you looked at the hands, and we have got some pictures of those behind the yellow divide. Was there any blood at all on the hands? One can see some sort of mark on the right hand, as we look at it. Do you see what I mean. On the mid-finger?
A: Yes, that's right. There appears to be some smearing there I noted first of all that the palms of the hand were certainly not contaminated with blood, but there was spotting of blood associated and close to the wrist. It was all from that sort of area.
Mr Justice Drake (To the witness): What you were being asked is, what about the fingers of the hand?
A: The fingers of the hand - that appears to be smearing.
Mr Aldridge (To the witness): Just one finger, if one looks at it. Is that right or not?
A: Yes
Q: Anything on the inside of the palm or the fingers?
A: No, there was nothing on the inside.
Mr Justice Drake (To the witness): I think you are quite properly referring to the notes you made at the time. If I have got the same copy, I think you recorded that the palms and fingers are not contaminated with blood?
A: By that I meant the palms and fingers on the inside. I am sorry if that caused confusion.
Q: The palms and then the fingers and the palms. I can understand that. Do you think that smear in the photograph is blood smearing?
A: Yes, my Lord.