Dr Vanezis Trial Testimony

[Holly Goodhead]

How can you not work out the simplest of things?

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

Dr V's notes make clear SC's palms were not contaminated with blood whereas NB's right hand was.  When he referred to the right hand causing what he thought was a palm print on SC's nightdress was he referring to NB's hand?

No measurements or palm prints were taken for comparison.

[Common sense]

I agree completely. I don't know whether Jeremy Bamber was guilty or not, but I'm not convinced that the trial was properly conducted. Paul Terzeon of Kingsley Napier said in 2002 that the defense would have acted differently had they known some facts they were unaware of at the time of the trial.

Which "unknown facts" would these be and how would they have made a material difference?

For example, the CT forever bleat on about the jury not being told the proper facts of the inheritance but they were. It was in an agreed note referred to by CoA.

What they weren't told is that NB secretly owned some of the Eatons land and Bamber intended to sell it and live the playboy lifestyle down under - the reason they weren't told was because only Bamber knew this and he kept quiet instead of telling the court himself.

[Nicholas]

Which "unknown facts" would these be and how would they have made a material difference?

For example, the CT forever bleat on about the jury not being told the proper facts of the inheritance but they were. It was in an agreed note referred to by CoA.

What they weren't told is that NB secretly owned some of the Eatons land and Bamber intended to sell it and live the playboy lifestyle down under - the reason they weren't told was because only Bamber knew this and he kept quiet instead of telling the court himself.

A highly significant point - what does Mark Newby make of this omission ?

[mrswah]

I agree. I simply despair of modern day tribalism. This forum isn't twitter, we can have a civilised debate and learn more about this complicated case from those that have studied it in depth.

Have you read the appeal court judgement? I find it difficult to believe anyone can read that and still have the confidence to declare him completely innocent.

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

Absolutely.  I'm learning all the time , since I have not studied the case in the depth some posters on here have.

The appeal court judgment?  Well, I'll be honest with you, and say that I've read half of it !!

I don't see how anyone has the confidence  to declare JB either innocent or guilty-----but that's just me!

[Holly Goodhead]

Dr V's notes make clear SC's palms were not contaminated with blood whereas NB's right hand was.  When he referred to the right hand causing what he thought was a palm print on SC's nightdress was he referring to NB's hand?

No measurements or palm prints were taken for comparison.

Dr V could not have been referring to June because he was writing the notes as he went along and June's pm didn't take place until after NB's and SC's on the following day.  So if it wasn't June's and it wasn't SC's as her hands were not contaminated it can only mean one thing and that's it originated from NB when the pair were in the kitchen.

No wonder Essex Police destroyed the nightdress against all protocols.

 

[Caroline]

Dr V's notes make clear SC's palms were not contaminated with blood whereas NB's right hand was.  When he referred to the right hand causing what he thought was a palm print on SC's nightdress was he referring to NB's hand?

No measurements or palm prints were taken for comparison.

How on. earth did you come to THAT conclusion? You are a stickler for what is documented until it comes to your own theories!

[Holly Goodhead]

How on. earth did you come to THAT conclusion? You are a stickler for what is documented until it comes to your own theories!

How did you arrive at your theories about the 'palm print' originating from SC when Dr V made clear her hands were not contaminated?

[Nicholas]

How did you arrive at your theories about the 'palm print' originating from SC when Dr V made clear her hands were not contaminated?

Bamber staged the crime scene and would have had time to wash SC’s hand - if he’d used it to make the ‘palm print’

He could have taken the bucket from downstairs upstairs to wash SC’s hand and then return it to where it originated

There were towels placed near NB - these could also have been used in the ‘clean up’

[Nicholas]

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.

I have

He’s guilty

And some of us know that ‘for sure’ 

SC didn’t have it in her to murder

[G-Unit]

I haven't a clue----we would have to ask Paul Terzeon which facts he is referring to.

I found it interesting that the police involvement in the issue of Mugford and Battersby's dealings with the Midland Bank weren't revealed to the defence at all. Mr Terzeon only found out in 2002 that a plain clothes police officer accompanied them to the bank on 4/10/85. According to the bank manager Mr Dovey's witness statement in 2002 the police officer was DS Jones who went away and then returned with a ready written statement for Mr Dovey to sign. That statement, dated 14/10/85 didn't mention the police involvement at all.

[Caroline]

How did you arrive at your theories about the 'palm print' originating from SC when Dr V made clear her hands were not contaminated?

Because I can see it's a palm print but don't push me on the bible - we ALL have stuff up our sleeves Holly.

[G-Unit]

Which "unknown facts" would these be and how would they have made a material difference?

For example, the CT forever bleat on about the jury not being told the proper facts of the inheritance but they were. It was in an agreed note referred to by CoA.

What they weren't told is that NB secretly owned some of the Eatons land and Bamber intended to sell it and live the playboy lifestyle down under - the reason they weren't told was because only Bamber knew this and he kept quiet instead of telling the court himself.

Did the Eatons share the information with anyone?

[Holly Goodhead]

Bamber staged the crime scene and would have had time to wash SC’s hand - if he’d used it to make the ‘palm print’

He could have taken the bucket from downstairs upstairs to wash SC’s hand and then return it to where it originated

There were towels placed near NB - these could also have been used in the ‘clean up’

And what would be the point in JB doing this?  How would it assist him 'staging' the scene and pinning the blame on SC?

[Caroline]

And what would be the point in JB doing this?  How would it assist him 'staging' the scene and pinning the blame on SC?

Vanezis initially stated that her R hand were not contaminated apart from blood - I don't know why he later changed it but has recently admitted that the marks on her nightdress do look like finger marks rather that an imprint of the trails from her wrists. My theory was produced from something he actually wrote - not from thin air.

[Holly Goodhead]

I found it interesting that the police involvement in the issue of Mugford and Battersby's dealings with the Midland Bank weren't revealed to the defence at all. Mr Terzeon only found out in 2002 that a plain clothes police officer accompanied them to the bank on 4/10/85. According to the bank manager Mr Dovey's witness statement in 2002 the police officer was DS Jones who went away and then returned with a ready written statement for Mr Dovey to sign. That statement, dated 14/10/85 didn't mention the police involvement at all.

Every which way you turn he was there.  Was he just a highly motivated officer determined to get his man or woman come what may all in the name of justice or was there something else at play?