Is there any evidence which implicates Sheila?

[G-Unit]

All this shows, G-Unit, is that you can’t comprehend information.

The pathologist noted that amongst Nevill’s horrific, brutal injuries — both gsw’s, and being viciously beaten, punched, kicked (even after death), and violently smashed over his head breaking his skull and exposing his brain — he also had a BROKEN NOSE.

I suggest you stick to FACTS rather than what you conjure up in that head of yours.

It's a fact that it was claimed in the appeal notes that Nevill had a broken nose, but I've been unable to find any testimony by Vanezis that he found a broken nose. He testified that the fractured skull was caused by the bullets which were fired into the head, though.

[Caroline]

It's a fact that it was claimed in the appeal notes that Nevill had a broken nose, but I've been unable to find any testimony by Vanezis that he found a broken nose. He testified that the fractured skull was caused by the bullets which were fired into the head, though.

There was also. a skull fracture associated with a blow from a blunt instrument . The one that caused the slightly curved laceration. I would be astounded if the injuries mentioned by Vanezis didn't include a broken nose.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

It's a fact that it was claimed in the appeal notes that Nevill had a broken nose, but I've been unable to find any testimony by Vanezis that he found a broken nose. He testified that the fractured skull was caused by the bullets which were fired into the head, though.

The pathologist, Dr Vanezis established that Nevill had been violently smashed on top of his head with a heavy blunt instrument — probably a rifle.

The heavy wooden rifle was smashed so hard against Nevill’s head that a shard of wood actually broke off the weapon and flew across the room. That’s some force, no?

Nevill’s skull was caved in, and it wasn’t caved in by a bullet entering his head.

Why can’t you understand that?

And why can’t you comprehend that Nevill’s nose was broken? Dr Vanezis examined it and proved it had been broken. When someone continuously refutes proof of experts, people dismiss them because there’s no point in trying to get through to someone who can’t accept facts.

[G-Unit]

The pathologist, Dr Vanezis established that Nevill had been violently smashed on top of his head with a heavy blunt instrument — probably a rifle.

The heavy wooden rifle was smashed so hard against Nevill’s head that a shard of wood actually broke off the weapon and flew across the room. That’s some force, no?

Nevill’s skull was caved in, and it wasn’t caved in by a bullet entering his head.

Why can’t you understand that?

And why can’t you comprehend that Nevill’s nose was broken? Dr Vanezis examined it and proved it had been broken. When someone continuously refutes proof of experts, people dismiss them because there’s no point in trying to get through to someone who can’t accept facts.

You'll be able to link to Vanezis' words then, rather than to the appeal transcript.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

It's a fact that it was claimed in the appeal notes that Nevill had a broken nose, but I've been unable to find any testimony by Vanezis that he found a broken nose. He testified that the fractured skull was caused by the bullets which were fired into the head, though.

You said Nevill never HAD a broken nose.

You’re lying

[G-Unit]

Find them yourself

Who are you to give me orders? I’m not obliged to prove anything to YOU. You’re not a lawyer, and I’m not on trial.

I couldn’t give a toss whether you believe me or not.

I’ve done my research, and that’s how I know.  I suggest you do the same.

Off you pop...

Hmm. Won't or can't provide evidence to support your claims?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Hmm. Won't or can't provide evidence to support your claims?

I showed evidence of Nevill’s broken nose on another thread further up — I’m sure you’ve seen it and are now satisfied 😊

[G-Unit]

I should wed evidence of Nevill’s broken nose on another thread further up — I’m sure you’ve seen it and are now satisfied 😊

You quoted the appeal transcript not the evidence given by Vanezis.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

You quoted the appeal transcript not the evidence given by Vanezis.

And where d’you think the factual evidence in the appeal transcript came from, Gunit?

[Holly Goodhead]

And where d’you think the factual evidence in the appeal transcript came from, G-unit?

Someone's incorrect interpretation.

[Caroline]

Someone's incorrect interpretation.

As opposed to?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Someone's incorrect interpretation.

So now you’re resorting to saying the courts make errors...

That’s truly desperate 🤣

[Holly Goodhead]

As opposed to?

His own reports: post mortem, various reports, trial testimony.

[Holly Goodhead]

So now you’re resorting to saying the courts make errors...

That’s truly desperate 🤣

I'm afraid the courts like all organisations get stuff wrong!

Caroline identified what she refers to as a "schoolboy error" over the blood staining in the bible.

[Nicholas]

I'm afraid the courts like all organisations get stuff wrong!

Caroline identified what she refers to as a "schoolboy error" over the blood staining in the bible.

Do you mean the ‘human beings’ who work in the courts ‘get stuff wrong’ ?