Det. Supt. 'Mick' Ainsley - oversight of corrupt practices

[guest7363]

Look, I haven't got time to waste so I will be plain. I regard any member who claimed they were unable to see that the clearer images (previously) posted up displayed wounds, as not being genuine.  It's as simple as that. The skin was clearly scraped. Streams of blood do not scrape skin. I haven't got time for disingenuous members.

Some people are able to immediately spot the wounds on the lower def images already on the forum.

Don’t you mean you haven’t got time when you can’t prove what your trying to bullshit.

[Roch]

Don’t you mean you haven’t got time when you can’t prove what your trying to bullshit.

How does that work? It was me and Bill who posted up the images. You're a fraud in my eyes, as you are dishonest.

[guest7363]

How does that work? It was me and Bill who posted up the images. You're a fraud in my eyes, as you are dishonest.

Well your eyes see’s things that aren’t there so I will take that as a compliment 😂😂

[Roch]

Well your eyes see’s things that aren’t there so I will take that as a compliment 😂😂

My brain knows that blood streams don't scrape human skin. I know the difference between a scab and a smear.  Go doth your cap to the relatives like a good serf.

[guest7363]

My brain knows that blood streams don't scrape human skin. I know the difference between a scab and a smear.  Go doth your cap to the relatives like a good serf.

But Vanezis doesn’t no the difference, rattle rattle 😂😂

[guest7363]

I believe that the term is LOL
It is a half inch cut, as you will see in due course.

Cant wait Bill, will it be out before Christmas and should we put money on it? Lol.

[Roch]

But Vanezis doesn’t no the difference, rattle rattle 😂😂

He obviously does know the difference. But like you posted up, he did alright from it didn't he?  His disclosed testimony in JB's prosecution failed to mention a number of other wounds also. One of which has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions in the archive section that Alias started. But as we both know, and everyone else on the forum knows, you're not interested - as a) it doesn't fit your stance and b) you believe he's honest and infallible. 

[Roch]

Cant wait Bill, will it be out before Christmas and should we put money on it? Lol.

I don't think he will get out or get to court of appeal.

[guest7363]

My brain knows that blood streams don't scrape human skin. I know the difference between a scab and a smear.  Go doth your cap to the relatives like a good serf.

You see, your missing the point, I can’t make out any scratch marks from those photos, like you say I’m probably blind as a bat, but there isn’t just me who can’t make out any scratch marks, the Pathologist can’t either, the judge and the defence don’t see them as well, yet you call him a liar and me a fraud all because I don’t buy into yours and Bills idea. 

[guest7363]

I don't think he will get out or get to court of appeal.

Your not reading the court trial documents re Vanezis, the judge goes over every detail about the Autopsy bundle of photos, he’s very thorough in that respect.  They have difference colour coding of photos which he promises the jury will see, he comments on virtually every mark or hole or blood staining.  He and they must have the originals on hand? 

[Roch]

You see, your missing the point, I can’t make out any scratch marks from those photos, like you say I’m probably blind as a bat, but there isn’t just me who can’t make out any scratch marks, the Pathologist can’t either, the judge and the defence don’t see them as well, yet you call him a liar and me a fraud all because I don’t buy into yours and Bills idea.

Obviously the pathologist could see them. What I meant before was, could he have been preoccupied with bullet wounds?  He helped wrongly send another man down, so he's not infallible. The judge sent down the Bridgewater Four and he prosecuted them Shrewsbury pickets.

[Roch]

Your not reading the court trial documents re Vanezis, the judge goes over every detail about the Autopsy bundle of photos, he’s very thorough in that respect.  They have difference colour coding of photos which he promises the jury will see, he comments on virtually every mark or hole or blood staining.  He and they must have the originals on hand?

This is an exaggeration. He does go over the marks on her wrist and hand. But we don't know what quality of photos were used. Also, the jury were unlikely to question Vanezis' sworn testimony. To them, he was an independent medical professional. If he said "smearing" and "blood runs", that would be enough for the jury.

[guest7363]

Obviously the pathologist could see them. What I meant before was, could he have been preoccupied with bullet wounds?  He helped wrongly send another man down, so he's not infallible. The judge sent down the Bridgewater Four and he prosecuted them Shrewsbury pickets.

No one is infallable, but I would think a cut abrasion or scratch is not hard to differentiate between a blood stain.  I’ll leave the topic if you like, but I’m being totally honest, I’ve looked and looked today, I only see blood and no scratch, abrasion or anything else. 

[David1819]

I believe that the term is LOL
It is a half inch cut, as you will see in due course.

Its a bloodstain, I have already seen the autopsy image you are referring to. 

[David1819]

Cant wait Bill, will it be out before Christmas and should we put money on it? Lol.