Dr Vanezis Trial Testimony

[Vertigo Swirl]

I ask myself if those who post here are as lacking in manners in their 'real' lives as they are in their virtual lives?

Vertigo Swirl asked if we know what the pathologist said at trial:

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11316.msg585510#msg585510

The answer is some here know because they have his trial testimony but it isn't in the library here so yesterday evening I spent a good 30 - 40 mins uploading it for the benefit of OTHERS.

Instead of a thank you I get:

- And the point you are making is?

- Isn't all this the same as what's already the same what's in here?

- Unfortunately some of those pages are virtually impossible to read

- Yes, a simple link would have sufficed, meanwhile my question elsewhere continues to be ignored.

- Do we aspire to be jurists ... or are we a group of people having discussions on events which happened a lifetime ago for us but a cruelly foreshortened time for the five murdered by Jeremy Bamber.

Sometimes I am of the opinion that the surfeit of information we are fed is more to obfuscate than inform.

- Will that sort out the “barely there” faded type?  Not that I’m remotely arsed to find out tbh.  I’ve read more than enough gut churning detail about the violent deaths of those poor people than  I ever needed to.

Unbelievable.

I asked if we knew what he said at the trial a propos the broken nose (you have taken my comment out of context) - a simple “ yes, he didn’t mention it, perhaps with the relevant page attached as source material, would surely have sufficed.  Instead I am supposed to wade through pages and pages of barely legible text to find an answer to a question that I don’t really think has much bearing on the case one way of the other?  Your reaction by posting everything is what I would term “overkill” and your irritable responses on this thread I would term as a massive “over-reaction”. 

[G-Unit]

I asked if we knew what he said at the trial a propos the broken nose (you have taken my comment out of context) - a simple “ yes, he didn’t mention it, perhaps with the relevant page attached as source material, would surely have sufficed.  Instead I am supposed to wade through pages and pages of barely legible text to find an answer to a question that I don’t really think has much bearing on the case one way of the other?  Your reaction by posting everything is what I would term “overkill” and your irritable responses on this thread I would term as a massive “over-reaction”.

I haven't seen any evidence that the pathologist;

Offered any opinion as to what the blunt object was.
Mentioned a broken nose.
Ran any DNA tests.
Denied that Sheila Caffell could have caused her father's injuries.
Tested any hair.
Tested clothing for fibres.

Yet all the above have been claimed. Perhaps these claims should be backed up by pointing out where they came from? Otherwise people might think misinformation is being used to make the crime look even worse than it undoutedly was.

[APRIL]

I haven't seen any evidence that the pathologist;

Offered any opinion as to what the blunt object was.
Mentioned a broken nose.
Ran any DNA tests.
Denied that Sheila Caffell could have caused her father's injuries.
Tested any hair.
Tested clothing for fibres.

Yet all the above have been claimed. Perhaps these claims should be backed up by pointing out where they came from? Otherwise people might think misinformation is being used to make the crime look even worse than it undoutedly was.

You appear to be overlooking that, at the time the bodies were examined, approximately 12 hours after their deaths, there was no suspect, other than Sheila. Further investigation -denied them, anyway, by the unseemly haste with which the adult bodies were cremated, wouldn't have been thought to be necessary. It's probable that, had there been another suspect, things would have been done differently. Hindsight is a wonderful tool.

[The General]

Will that sort out the “barely there” faded type?  Not that I’m remotely arsed to find out tbh.  I’ve read more than enough gut churning detail about the violent deaths of those poor people than  I ever needed to.

Yes, you can manipulate the brightness, etc.

[Brietta]

I haven't seen any evidence that the pathologist;

Offered any opinion as to what the blunt object was.
Mentioned a broken nose.
Ran any DNA tests.
Denied that Sheila Caffell could have caused her father's injuries.
Tested any hair.
Tested clothing for fibres.

Yet all the above have been claimed. Perhaps these claims should be backed up by pointing out where they came from? Otherwise people might think misinformation is being used to make the crime look even worse than it undoutedly was.

Dr Vanezis trial testimony isn't all there was to determine Jeremy Bamber's guilt and he did make some omissions with the potential to have been vital, which were noted at a later date one of which (the handprint on Sheila Caffell's nightdress) was described as follows in the conclusions to Bamber's appeal ...

520

• Our conclusion was that we should not therefore admit the evidence and we have had no regard to it in reaching our conclusion. It can, however, be said about it that if it had been called at trial, it may well have represented yet another formidable string to the prosecution's bow in a case where even without any regard to that evidence, it has to be said that the prosecution were able to put forward a very strong case pointing to guilt.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html

***   ***   ***   ***

I think rather than - in my opinion - attempting to blind us all with a narrow science reflecting your firmly held point of view it might be time to give some consideration to the broader picture.

[Caroline]

You have access to the trial testimony which others don't.

So where did you het this copy from?

[Caroline]

I asked if we knew what he said at the trial a propos the broken nose (you have taken my comment out of context) - a simple “ yes, he didn’t mention it, perhaps with the relevant page attached as source material, would surely have sufficed.  Instead I am supposed to wade through pages and pages of barely legible text to find an answer to a question that I don’t really think has much bearing on the case one way of the other?  Your reaction by posting everything is what I would term “overkill” and your irritable responses on this thread I would term as a massive “over-reaction”.

I think she posted it for good reasons so that everyone could read it rather than just seeing. extracts.

[G-Unit]

You appear to be overlooking that, at the time the bodies were examined, approximately 12 hours after their deaths, there was no suspect, other than Sheila. Further investigation -denied them, anyway, by the unseemly haste with which the adult bodies were cremated, wouldn't have been thought to be necessary. It's probable that, had there been another suspect, things would have been done differently. Hindsight is a wonderful tool.

You appearing to be overlooking the fact that people have regularly put words into Vanezis' mouth without providing any evidence that he said them. That, to me, is a step too far. 

[Caroline]

You appearing to be overlooking the fact that people have regularly put words into Vanezis' mouth without providing any evidence that he said them. That, to me, is a step too far.

They have also played down what he said and ignored important terms like 'fractured suck' - you were silent on these issues.

[G-Unit]

Dr Vanezis trial testimony isn't all there was to determine Jeremy Bamber's guilt and he did make some omissions with the potential to have been vital, which were noted at a later date one of which (the handprint on Sheila Caffell's nightdress) was described as follows in the conclusions to Bamber's appeal ...

520

• Our conclusion was that we should not therefore admit the evidence and we have had no regard to it in reaching our conclusion. It can, however, be said about it that if it had been called at trial, it may well have represented yet another formidable string to the prosecution's bow in a case where even without any regard to that evidence, it has to be said that the prosecution were able to put forward a very strong case pointing to guilt.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html

***   ***   ***   ***

I think rather than - in my opinion - attempting to blind us all with a narrow science reflecting your firmly held point of view it might be time to give some consideration to the broader picture.

Vanezis wrote in his notes at the post mortem that some of the bloodstains on Sheila's nightdress were made by her right hand. In court he said there was no blood on her hand. When questioned by CAL, he said "I'm not whether I said that after the blood had been washed from her hands". [page 194]

It would be interesting to know at what point this hand washing occured.

[G-Unit]

They have also played down what he said and ignored important terms like 'fractured suck' - you were silent on these issues.

Which page is that on please?

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Do we aspire to be jurists ... or are we a group of people having discussions on events which happened a lifetime ago for us but a cruelly foreshortened time for the five murdered by Jeremy Bamber.

Sometimes I am of the opinion that the surfeit of information we are fed is more to obfuscate than inform.

Posting pages and pages and pages f documents we’ve already read in the formal report is actually boring, and doesn’t mean a thing. Only one person has viewed all that effort Holly went to, so she should relax a bit and just post links — far simpler.

She’s trying to pad out her non-argument knowing that no-one is bothered enough to read it.

The people who DID read it were the jury: the ones who found the mass murderer GUILTY.

That’s all that matters, as the appeal court judges said.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I don't know what Holly's point is, but I'm pleased that everyone can see what the pathologist actually said, rather than what some like to think he said.

Oh, that explains why you kept getting everything wrong, G-Unit...you’d never read it before...

I have, as have most contributors on here.

I’m glad you now have some understand of the actual facts 😊

[G-Unit]

Posting pages and pages and pages f documents we’ve already read in the formal report is actually boring, and doesn’t mean a thing. Only one person has viewed all that effort Holly went to, so she should relax a bit and just post links — far simpler.

She’s trying to pad out her non-argument knowing that no-one is bothered enough to read it.

The people who DID read it were the jury: the ones who found the mass murderer GUILTY.

That’s all that matters, as the appeal court judges said.

How can it be boring to read the evidence? I think it's better than making wild guesses with nothing to confirm their truth.

[Brietta]

Vanezis wrote in his notes at the post mortem that some of the bloodstains on Sheila's nightdress were made by her right hand. In court he said there was no blood on her hand. When questioned by CAL, he said "I'm not whether I said that after the blood had been washed from her hands". [page 194]

It would be interesting to know at what point this hand washing occured.

It is apparent that the appeal court did not consider that Sheila’s hand had been washed as you speculate. Rather the reverse.  They concurred that had Vanezis brought the evidence available in his notes to the original trial it would have served to reinforce Bamber’s guilt.

The point is not the red herring you have introduced it is the fact that Vanezis was privy to information he did not present to the trial which was as accurate as that which he did. 

Just because evidence was not presented at the trial does not detract from its validity and no witness can be considered infallible, sometimes things get missed as I think happened on this occasion I think a bloody handprint on a murdered victim's body is a big deal.

Anyway ... for the purposes of a discussion forum just because evidence was not led at trial does not invalidate it as a discussion tool. This is not a trial and I think it is appropriate to discuss all information with a valid source which in this instance happens to be that part of Vanezis's notes which he chose not to tell the court about.

517
The most clear cut of which was that Mr Ismail had referred to a bloodstain on the upper right thigh of Sheila Caffell's nightdress that was clearly caused by a bloody hand print. He said that he understood that Dr Vanezis, the pathologist, had given evidence that there was no blood on the palm side of Sheila Caffell's hands. Therefore, he concluded, this staining must have been deposited by another individual. However, whilst Mr Ismail rightly recorded the evidence of Dr Vanezis, Mr Turner was able to point to a note made by Dr Vanezis at the time of the post-mortem examination that read:
"bloodstained palm prints on nightdress matches bloodstains appeared to have transferred from R hand. "
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2002/2912.html