Dr Vanezis Trial Testimony

[Common sense]

The evidence is there in black and white that SC was moved at soc after first respondents entered: A/PS Woodcock's wit stat and testimony from forensic scientist Martyn Ismail.

Other officers also thought SC had been moved at soc when shown soc images which were different from their initial recollections.  Blood stain analyst, Prof Herb Macdonnell also thought SC had been moved at soc.

Blood test results for the bible were not made available to the defence which begs the questions why and why didn't the defence pursue?  Although heavily blood stained and found at centre of crime noone knows whose blood?!

The post mortem moving of Sheila works against Jeremy as he would have motive and reason to do this, the police would not. They admitted moving her arm and removing/replacing the gun for the photographs. Which police officer would have moved her whole body and why? Say her head was propped up against the cabinet and a PO went to feel for a pulse and her head then fell to the floor - why not just admit that?

The direction of the blood flow from her mouth suggests she was lying flat for some time.

As the 2002 CA made clear, the defence did pursue the bible issue and quite keenly but then dropped all interest in it, the most likely explanation being that the pages had clearly been shut and reopened while the blood was wet. It was pictured lying on top of a pool of Sheila's blood so likely the blood was Sheila's.

[Caroline]

The evidence is there in black and white that SC was moved at soc after first respondents entered: A/PS Woodcock's wit stat and testimony from forensic scientist Martyn Ismail.

Other officers also thought SC had been moved at soc when shown soc images which were different from their initial recollections.  Blood stain analyst, Prof Herb Macdonnell also thought SC had been moved at soc.

Blood test results for the bible were not made available to the defence which begs the questions why and why didn't the defence pursue?  Although heavily blood stained and found at centre of crime noone knows whose blood?!

Not this again Holly? Woodcock also noted the blood pattern around her mouth which is at complete odds with her head being off the floor and Ismail doesn't support what you are saying, just that 'when shot' he head was off the floor. I agree with MacDonnell, she had been moved, by Bamber!

Yes, why didn't the defence pursue?

[Caroline]

The post mortem moving of Sheila works against Jeremy as he would have motive and reason to do this, the police would not. They admitted moving her arm and removing/replacing the gun for the photographs. Which police officer would have moved her whole body and why? Say her head was propped up against the cabinet and a PO went to feel for a pulse and her head then fell to the floor - why not just admit that?

The direction of the blood flow from her mouth suggests she was lying flat for some time. Of course it does!!

As the 2002 CA made clear, the defence did pursue the bible issue and quite keenly but then dropped all interest in it, the most likely explanation being that the pages had clearly been shut and reopened while the blood was wet. It was pictured lying on top of a pool of Sheila's blood so likely the blood was Sheila's.

There is more to this issue than meets the eye.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

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.

I’ve already replied to you, G-Unit

Nevill suffered a broken nose.

The pathologist established that, yet you’re disbelieving it.



[attachment deleted by admin]

[ISpyWithMyEye]

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.

 

Dr Vanezis is not thick, gullible, or naive — no-one could have, or would have been bale to put words into his mouth! Besides his own reports he had photographic evidence of the PM’s; took X-rays; sent bloods and tissue samples to the lab for analysis...and you're saying some PC Plodd put words into his mouth?!

[ISpyWithMyEye]

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.

Well, I read through it all long before you put those grainy shots up...

[ISpyWithMyEye]

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.

CAL interviewed Dr Vanezis 30 years after he’d carried out the post mortem. He’s carried out THOUSANDS throughout his career! He obviously couldn’t quite recall when Sheila’s hand had been washed of blood: he may have done it himself after examine her hands, or a mortuary assistant may have cleaned it — he merely said he couldn’t remember when her hand had been washed. But it’s irrelevant: Sheila’s head, hands and feet were all covered in bags before they placed her in a body bag and took her to the mortuary.

Furthermore, the hand IMPRINT of blood on Sheila’s hand was hers. No-one else’s. Hers. EXACT match.

So whatever you’re trying to infer, just don’t bother...you’re nitpicking.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

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

You read the evidence and don’t understand it!

You said Nevill didn’t have a broken nose...but that’s in the evidence too!

[ISpyWithMyEye]

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

You’ve explained that perfectly, Brietta :)

[G-Unit]

The rubbish you come out with is embarrassing

Dr Vanezis is not thick, gullible, or naive — no-one could have, or would have been bale to put words into his mouth! Besides his own reports he had photographic evidence of the PM’s; took X-rays; sent bloods and tissue samples to the lab for analysis...and you're saying some PC Plodd put words into his mouth?!

I was referring to posters on forums such as this one.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

The above is perhaps the best evidence of JB's appalling defence at trial and 2002 appeal.

At the 2002 appeal forensic scientist Martyn Ismail was called by the prosecution to testify about SC's position as depicted in soc images. Point 514 +

http://www.homepage-link.to/justice/judgements/Bamber/index.html

He said after the second fatal gsw SC's head would have fallen back against the bedside cabinet but soc images show her head flat to the floor.  However first respondent A/PS Woodcock states in his wit stat SC's head was raised against the bedside cabinet.  Who moved SC at soc after she was first observed by A/PS Woodcock and soc images taken?  It wasn't JB as he was outside with police.

The defence was so poor that points that should have been a slam dunk for JB were allowed to be used against him by the prosecution.

You’ve misread that.

The police officer said Sheila’s he’d was “slightly raised against the bed cabinet”

Which it was.

He didn’t say Sheila’s head was PROPPED UP LEANING against the cabinet”

In all the photographs of Sheila, both when she was first found and had clearly not even been TOUCHED, and the photographs where the police moved the rifle on her lap to enable the photographer to take pictures of the bloodied hand imprint on her nightdress, Sheila’s body is in the EXACT same spot; EXACT same position; and her nightdress was ALSO in the EXACT same position.

Jeremy Bamber had obviously dragged her down flat on the floor, otherwise it would have been even more obvious she couldn’t have shot herself half sitting up. When he dragged her dead body down, him being thick, forgot that the back of her nightdress would bunch up.

You can see the EXACT bunching in all photos.

Do you SERIOUSLY think all the lawyers, QC’s and jury didn’t study this detail?! Do you?? 

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I think the 2002 appeal was JBs own fault. Unlike an appeal referred by the single judge, a referral by the CCRC allows other points to be thrown in without permission. I doubt any QC would have annoyed the court with the idiotic and ultimately self defeating nonsense that only Bamber could have insisted upon.

I think any defence that brings up evidence of a body being moved post mortem when his client is accused of staging the scene would likely be struck off - a point emphasised by the CoA regarding the bible issue.

Spot on, Common Sense.

We all know Jeremy Bamber is guilty, as does he. As did the jury. And as did the judge and COA judges.

Bamber’s few supporters try to distort & twist ludicrous points that have no significance — and were dealt with decades ago.

They can spout until they’re blue in the face, but the courts made their mind up 34 years ago and knew far more than any of us do; hence why his sentence was INCREASED to Life without Parole.

All these petty little points they try to make have been batted out of court years ago...the ludicrous suggestions that the police shot Sheila, Crispy shot her, the police set him up, the police moved her body...it’s all BS. They’ll be doing this until JB pops his clogs in his cell...they seem to live and breathe him. I find it revolting how anyone can be drawn to a mass murderer who also shot dead two little boys...

[ISpyWithMyEye]

The evidence is there in black and white that SC was moved at soc after first respondents entered: A/PS Woodcock's wit stat and testimony from forensic scientist Martyn Ismail.

Other officers also thought SC had been moved at soc when shown soc images which were different from their initial recollections.  Blood stain analyst, Prof Herb Macdonnell also thought SC had been moved at soc.

Blood test results for the bible were not made available to the defence which begs the questions why and why didn't the defence pursue?  Although heavily blood stained and found at centre of crime noone knows whose blood?!

Sheila wasn’t moved at all.

Have you not seen the photographs?

Both before the gun was removed for the photographs, and afterwards? Sheila is in the identical spot/position. Her nightdress has IDENTICAL bundling.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

The overall conclusion in the end was that SC body had been staged by Bamber

It was, Nicholas.

And everyone knows it.

Except a few of his supporters who have difficulty understanding that.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

The post mortem moving of Sheila works against Jeremy as he would have motive and reason to do this, the police would not. They admitted moving her arm and removing/replacing the gun for the photographs. Which police officer would have moved her whole body and why? Say her head was propped up against the cabinet and a PO went to feel for a pulse and her head then fell to the floor - why not just admit that?

The direction of the blood flow from her mouth suggests she was lying flat for some time.

As the 2002 CA made clear, the defence did pursue the bible issue and quite keenly but then dropped all interest in it, the most likely explanation being that the pages had clearly been shut and reopened while the blood was wet. It was pictured lying on top of a pool of Sheila's blood so likely the blood was Sheila's.

Yes, the defence very quickly dropped the Bible attempt...when they realised it brought into question how Sheila could have shot herself in the throat, causing massive blood loss to collect in her throat and neck (as seen by the swelling in the photographs), been semi-conscious, gurgling for breath, partially paralysed as her upper spine had been shattered by the bullet — then somehow picked the Bible up, opened it, deliberately put her hand in the pool of blood that had escaped from her neck into a pool beside her, then pressed her hand hard inside the Bible, closed it, opened it again and put it down next to her when she was supposedly holding the long rifle in her right hand and her left arm was twisted backwards towards her head...them somehow managed to shoot herself a second time.

No wonder the defence quickly shut up about THAT!

Jeremy hadn’t anticipated when he pressed Sheila’s hand onto the Bible then closed it, that it it would make an identical hand print on the opposite page! What an idiot! Besides being an evil psychopath and mass murderer, he’s also thick.