Dr Vanezis Trial Testimony

[Angelo222]

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.

I would tend to agree.    

[Angelo222]

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?!

She wasn't moved as such, the first responders merely lifted her arm in order to remove and make safe the rifle.  Had she been moved then the blood trails would have been very different.

[Common sense]

I think while Holly is spending taxpayers money on reconstructions, a recon of Sheila shooting herself and ending up in that position based on expert blood spatter analysis and her rucked up nightdress would be interesting.

She was clearly upright and leaning to her right in order for the blood to have dripped on to her arm so I'm far from convinced that the rifle would end up lying in the middle of her body.

How the bible came to be in that position, slightly on top of her upper arm and covering a pool of her blood also boggles my mind. Was she supposed to be holding the bible and the 4ft rifle when she supposedly shot herself?

It all points to a scene staged by Bamber to my mind. 

[APRIL]

She wasn't moved as such, the first responders merely lifted her arm in order to remove and make safe the rifle.  Had she been moved then the blood trails would have been very different.

And it's these tiny, and otherwise insignificant actions, that supporters cling to as being proof of others' corruption, ergo, Jeremy's innocence.

[APRIL]

I think while Holly is spending taxpayers money on reconstructions, a recon of Sheila shooting herself and ending up in that position based on expert blood spatter analysis and her rucked up nightdress would be interesting.

She was clearly upright and leaning to her right in order for the blood to have dripped on to her arm so I'm far from convinced that the rifle would end up lying in the middle of her body.

How the bible came to be in that position, slightly on top of her upper arm and covering a pool of her blood also boggles my mind. Was she supposed to be holding the bible and the 4ft rifle when she supposedly shot herself?

It all points to a scene staged by Bamber to my mind.

It may also be worth noting that when muscles relax, limbs flop. There's no way that, in death, she'd have been holding the rifle in that contrived way.

[Holly Goodhead]

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

Dr V was specifically asked by the trial judge to clarify this inconsistency between his notes and trial testimony.  When he carried out the pm the blood staining was restricted to SC's wrist and a mid-finger and he confirmed SC's palms were not contaminated with blood.

The washing referred to took place during pm.

End of unless you want to go down the road that he perjured himself?

If the nightdress hadn't been destroyed against all protocols it could be tested by way of blood staining analysis and DNA.

NB and June's hands were heavily blood stained.

[Common sense]

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...

I share your disdain for the CT and those that repeat their desperate stupid dishonest nonsense but I take the view that the there is some room for legitimate doubt about aspects of the case and respect others differing opinions where they are based on fact.

Unlike the Bamberettes, I have no emotional investment here, I couldn't care less if it turns out he is innocent after all but I have been waiting 34 years for something concrete to convince me and so far.. nothing

[Holly Goodhead]

She wasn't moved as such, the first responders merely lifted her arm in order to remove and make safe the rifle.  Had she been moved then the blood trails would have been very different.

The rifle was made safe after soc images were taken. 

Soc officers DI Cook and DC Hammersly confirmed SC's arm was lifted to photograph blood stains underneath.

I'm talking about A/PS Woodcock's wit stat, who was one of the first to enter the bedroom along with PC's Collins and Delgado, where he observed and noted SC's head raised against the bedside cabinet which is at odds with soc images showing the head flat to the floor.

Fast fwd some 17 years and Martyn Ismail for the prosecution (yes let that detonate) concluded from the blood staining (which was in its infancy mid 80's and not used at trial) that SC's head was raised against the bedside cabinet and she had been pulled down by her feet evidenced by the rucking up of her nightdress.

To conclude a first respondents observation of SC's found position correspond with testimony from Martyn Ismail that sC' s head was raised against the bedside cabinet not flat to the floor as depicted in soc images.

Who moved SC at soc and why?  It wasn't JB as he was outside with the police.  More importantly why hasn't anyone fessed up?  This has clearly been covered up which begs the question what else has been covered up?

[Holly Goodhead]

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

Oh and Brie BTW Mr Turner was JB's useless defence QC.

Dr Vanezis made clear SC's palms were not contaminated with blood.  Whereas NB's right hand was heavily bloodstained, how can it be excluded that the marks on SC's nightdress did not originate from NB when they were in the kitchen and SC was inflicting the non-gunshot wounds? 

[APRIL]

Oh and Brie BTW Mr Turner was JB's useless defence QC.

Dr Vanezis made clear SC's palms were not contaminated with blood.  Whereas NB's right hand was heavily bloodstained, how can it be excluded that the marks on SC's nightdress did not originate from NB when they were in the kitchen and SC was inflicting the non-gunshot wounds?

It might be reasonably expected that Nevill's hand would be larger than Sheila's, that's apart from the fingerprints being in a downward position. It's difficult to imagine how it would have been possible for Nevill to make such a print.

[mrswah]

It may also be worth noting that when muscles relax, limbs flop. There's no way that, in death, she'd have been holding the rifle in that contrived way.

Now, that I can agree with!

[mrswah]

I share your disdain for the CT and those that repeat their desperate stupid dishonest nonsense but I take the view that the there is some room for legitimate doubt about aspects of the case and respect others differing opinions where they are based on fact.

Unlike the Bamberettes, I have no emotional investment here, I couldn't care less if it turns out he is innocent after all but I have been waiting 34 years for something concrete to convince me and so far.. nothing

I have no interest in the CT either: some of the "supporters" I have come across are quite objectionable. So are some "guilters"-----it's almost like opposing religions at times!

I'm not really interested in Jeremy either, but I am very interested in the case, which is intriguing.  I have never been able to make up my mind whether or not he's guilty, and personally, I suspect we will never find out for sure. 

[APRIL]

Now, that I can agree with!

It's amazing how, in attempt to prove MOJ -or innocence!!!, not always commensurate with being the same, but if it ends up as an MOJ, who cares about innocence?- unnecessary complications are being added to this argument, whilst the simplest of truths are being ignored.

[ISpyWithMyEye]

I think while Holly is spending taxpayers money on reconstructions, a recon of Sheila shooting herself and ending up in that position based on expert blood spatter analysis and her rucked up nightdress would be interesting.

She was clearly upright and leaning to her right in order for the blood to have dripped on to her arm so I'm far from convinced that the rifle would end up lying in the middle of her body.

How the bible came to be in that position, slightly on top of her upper arm and covering a pool of her blood also boggles my mind. Was she supposed to be holding the bible and the 4ft rifle when she supposedly shot herself?

It all points to a scene staged by Bamber to my mind.

Is it taxpayers money paying for this nonsense?  I thought he’d been begging people for money and to take out loans.

I did suggest that a reconstruction of Sheila shooting herself would be better than the one Holly wants of the “perp” shooting everyone....we all know they were shot, and we all know it was easy. Not so with Sheila, though...

But Holly failed to comment. She avoids awkward questions/points...

[ISpyWithMyEye]

Oh and Brie BTW Mr Turner was JB's useless defence QC.

Dr Vanezis made clear SC's palms were not contaminated with blood.  Whereas NB's right hand was heavily bloodstained, how can it be excluded that the marks on SC's nightdress did not originate from NB when they were in the kitchen and SC was inflicting the non-gunshot wounds?

How can you not work out the simplest of things?

Nevill’s hand was twice the size of Sheila’s....