I'm not sure how long it was before Vanezis saw the crimescene photos but he did complain to police that he had not been able to examine the scene in person BEFORE the bodies were moved. Vanezis did the autopsy blind sort of speak since he did not have the benefit of those crucial crimescene photos, the sight of Sheila he was presented with in the morgue was completely different to how the police found her, the photos prove this.
My point is this, did Vanezis arrive at his original determination not knowing ALL the facts?
Some of his original determinations were not arrived at with knowing everything which is why in 1986 he listed a series of improvements to avoid future problems. That has nothing to do with his examination of her body though and what he observed when examining her. The notion that in his autopsy report he meant that her inside hands were free of blood after washing them is patently absurd. Some have tried to use this absurd suggestion to their own ends but it is not the least bit credible.
Some of his assessments were stupid anyway it is clear he had little knowledge with respect to damage caused by rifles and how they are used to beat people because he stupidly suggested perhaps the barrel of the rifle was used to stab Nevill's arms. The damage to his arms was caused by the butt of the rifle anyone who has used a rifle butt as a weapon will recognize that. He recognized the butt was used to bash Nevill's skull in he should have recognized Nevill tried blocking the blows from the butt with his arm. But worse yet, by the time he published his report he knew the moderator was used so the barrel could not have been used as he claimed. He chose not to fix his report. He wrote it in early August. He added the tox results to it in September then published it as is instead of fixing it. That not the fault of police it is his.
He didn't really care to consult with the lab experts to fix his report he simply tried justifying his errors later by saying they should have had experts at the scene so he would have been aware of things at the time he wrote his report in August. While true he still should have changed his report based on the lab analysis instead of being lady and publishing it as is with known errors.
This thread though is devoted to his nonsense claim to CAL that perhaps he meant the inside of her hands were free of blood after being washed. There is no way at all anyone would write that in an autopsy report. It is simply ludicrous. The issue of significance was the state of the body before washing and it is quite clear that is what he was describing in his report.
He didn't change his autopsy report
