The mystery of PV25 and PV26

[Bubo bubo]

First I pose some questions. How would that wound between June’s eyes have been regarded if she had not received a second wound to the temple?

If Jeremy was the shooter why waste precious time and energy shooting her again in that symbolic fashion and why not choose the heart? If she collapsed against the door and fell to her left, what position would Jeremy have to adopt to make the symbolic shot? If Sheila was in an erratic psychotic state such an action is possible but requires a different psychology and mind set I would argue. With two head wounds the blood loss would be substantial. Given that movement would be near impossible, where is all the blood?

Venezis autopsy and samples list is on the forum. There is one factor that distinguishes this wound from all others. The samples list details where and how the various bullets were found at autopsy. PV25 was said to have been taken from the front of head. Get yourself a brain picture showing the various areas of the brain, frontal lobe etc? Then read the autopsy for this wound. You will find that this is the only wound where there is a discrepancy between the samples list and autopsy.

Do fragmented bullets offer greater opportunities for ballistic evidence manipulation?

Then read MF's statement on these wounds. Both were said to be nearly whole and for one he was unable to say it was fired from the rifle exhibit 18.

[Bubo bubo]

First I pose some questions. How would that wound between June’s eyes have been regarded if she had not received a second wound to the temple?

If Jeremy was the shooter why waste precious time and energy shooting her again in that symbolic fashion and why not choose the heart? If she collapsed against the door and fell to her left, what position would Jeremy have to adopt to make the symbolic shot? If Sheila was in an erratic psychotic state such an action is possible but requires a different psychology and mind set I would argue. With two head wounds the blood loss would be substantial. Given that movement would be near impossible, where is all the blood?

Venezis autopsy and samples list is on the forum. There is one factor that distinguishes this wound from all others. The samples list details where and how the various bullets were found at autopsy. PV25 was said to have been taken from the front of head. Get yourself a brain picture showing the various areas of the brain, frontal lobe etc? Then read the autopsy for this wound. You will find that this is the only wound where there is a discrepancy between the samples list and autopsy.

Do fragmented bullets offer greater opportunities for ballistic evidence manipulation?

Then read MF's statement on these wounds. Both were said to be nearly whole and for one he was unable to say it was fired from the rifle exhibit 18.

Go to vanezis statements. The second one dated 30/09/85 and 26/1185 shows the full autopsy. Page 11 on the autopsy for PV25 wound. The Samples list are the last two pages.

[Bubo bubo]

I believe the Samples list entry for PV20 has also been changed. See if you can discover why this is the case?

[Bubo bubo]

By the way the blood is under the toilet mat.

[Bubo bubo]

So it seems that PV not only missed/concealed victims wounds but also cannot tell the difference between the front of the head and the base of the skull!

What are we to make of Peter Vanezis?

[/size]

The Police are among the most sensitive of organisations when it comes to close inspection of their behaviour in the discharge of their duties. They do not take criticism very well and are always reluctant to admit they are or were wrong. They have millions of stock in trade responses to explain themselves. I do not want to set out a discourse on British Policing in the last 40 years but would draw particular emphasis on how they behave when they “accidently” kill.

I believe they deliberately engaged Mr Patel in the ‘Ian Tomlinson Case’, either because he was incompetent or because they knew he would produce an outcome which was in their favour. My guess is that it was the latter.

Was Peter Vanezis selected on a random basis and if not who requested his attendance at WHF?

Did he get sucked into a cover-up along with some Essex Police officers or was he a willing participant?

What was the purpose of his note of 12/11/86? Who asked him to write it and why?

Is it an attempt to remove suspicion from him for the part he played in the case?

Is it a vehicle to allow him to exonerate himself in any future enquiries in that the early decision of murder suicide was a police error not his? He wanted to protect his reputation.

In view of the above how might various interpretations be placed upon this statement? I intend to go through some of this on a paragraph by paragraph basis.

Paragraph 1 interpretation.

I knew nothing until I phoned Essex. I only spoke to a junior officer who told me what he knew and why I was needed. A more senior officer may have been able to give me information which would have led me to take a different course of action because I was not told anything about an accident.

Paragraph 2 interpretation

I thought it was strange that I was not wanted at the scene. I did not think there was anything malevolent underscoring this and I could have helped significantly if I had gone to the scene. Because of their actions I assumed incorrectly that their diagnosis was correct. Why was I only allowed to get my information second hand from an officer who did not appreciate my status or skills set?

Paragraph 3 interpretation

I was surprised that a ballistics expert was not attending the autopsy and made this known. I am a pathologist and a good one but I am not competent to pass judgement on ballistics removed from the deceased. They led me to believe it was an uncomplicated case and as such ballistics would not contribute to the outcome. There were lots of bullets and because of fragmentation and distortion I could easily failed to detect a larger round.

Paragraph 4 interpretation

I trusted that they had not altered the clothing the victims were wearing and that all procedures had been adhered to as required. It was difficult for me to work on the autopsies without photographs of the bodies’ in-situ.

Paragraph 5 interpretation

How could I know what Jeremy said was correct, since they seemed to have taken his word along with other information they had gleaned to come to their preliminary conclusion. I did not have photographs to examine whether their description of how Sheila was found were correct.

Paragraph 6 interpretation

I was confident at that time that it was four murders and a suicide because the police thought it was such and I could not find anything to contradict them.

Paragraphs 7 & 8 interpretation

I could not pronounce either way but was influenced by others and their description of the weapon used to come to the decision that it was probably suicide. I have seen two shot suicides before. I was told that the rifle used was semi-automatic and therefore more likely to produce additional shots. Please remember ballistics is not my area of expertise. I was not told of the other weapons on the premises. I can’t remember whether any of the two shot suicides involved a rifle.


Paragraphs 9, 10, & 11 interpretation

I only counted 24 shots not 25. I did not say that Sheila had a good knowledge of how the rifle operated. I said the perpetrator must have had this knowledge. How could I know if more than one person had fired some of the shots?

The Meeting at WHF

I would now like to comment on that part of the note which covers the meeting and the notes that follow which relate to Neville.

This record of the meeting is male cow excrement. They showed him the house, where the bodies were located, the security, (was there something besides door and window locks?) and the telephone. Did they think he was a GPO engineer or a handset connoisseur, surely they would have shown him any potential blood trail. He was a pathologist.

He name checks Stan Jones twice as the person who suspects Jeremy. He makes it clear that Stan did not like Jeremy or his behaviour. If Stan was the architect of the framing he is pointing out that it was the silencer and JM’s testimony that sank Jeremy not his silence with regard to any cover-up.

He then goes onto his diagnosis which he limits to only two possibilities. He does not consider that Sheila could have let in a third party to do most of the killing, before letting the same out before killing herself. Remote as it may be, neither he nor they could limit the possibilities at that stage, unless they knew different.

The “Jeremy would have to be a nutter” passage is dependent upon the context of the preceding conversation. It could be said following

We cannot frame him because… or any number of other scenarios. I think he is trying to appear on Jeremy’s side because he wanted to distance himself from the outcome.

What I find most strange is his comment about where Neville was shot. Throughout he makes reference to things which are in the province of ballistics experts. In fact just before this he makes reference to this very point, in relation to Sheila’s nails. Yet now he is saying that he did not see the shell casings.
Surely he can’t have it both ways. He is introducing an element of doubt on the 4x4 scenario but does not make comment about other victims and their shell casings, why? The dispersal of casings is also driven by ballistics science but in this case he does not mention it nor why seeing these would have helped with determining Neville’s death but not June’s.

He says his visit was for a cursory search. I don’t think this was the reason. I believe this was a strategy meeting, in a place where just a few key players met, to discuss how to handle the mess in complete privacy.

Discussion

Is the document a cynical ploy or is it the document of an angry man who has fallen foul of a combination of circumstances and like some police officers, has seen his attempts to help Essex police turn into a nightmare?

If it is the former it must rank as one of the most hideous pieces of artifice ever constructed.

The answer to this might lay in the circumstances of his assignment to the case and who asked him to produce this report. If it was a random allocation it is more likely it is the latter.

Either way it looks like an attempt to distance himself from the police and what they may have done.
The report seems to be saying I took no part in the framing of Jeremy Bamber.

I find it strange that he talks of 24 shots, only two weeks after the trial where the total was 25. Could it be that the lower neck shot with the fragmented bullet only existed on celluloid, created to give the impression that Sheila was the last to die and could have been alive in the final period of the siege? Was it just a simple mistake? There are many references to Sheila only having one wound, (inquest). They presented a whole round at trial.

I do not know what he means by security. Was this the police cordon around the property to preserve the crime scene? Was it some form of intruder alarm or panic button?

It may be the case where he ‘lost his virginity’ or it may be another ‘job done’, issue slapped wrist note to the police.

They appear to have decided to let things run but to keep in touch. There is no doubt that he could have produced and issued his autopsy report without the blood tests for drugs. Those tests could have been reported later. My guess is they wanted to wait to see which way the wind was blowing and to obtain some results on forensics, before putting pen to paper. I have no doubt that he was asked to produce reports which fitted their needs. However he missed the fact that originally they wanted it to be Sheila and he used the word ‘stunned’ which along with other issues led him to produce a subsequent report clarifying his position on what activity she was capable of following the supposed first shot.

It is possible that they had to provide him with reassurance since he states several times that as far as he was concerned and from what he was told, the case was resolving to the four murders and suicide position.

Did they tell him they would doctor his report if his professionalism meant he could not do it?

Who safeguards the public from rogue Forensic Pathologists?

[Bubo bubo]

PV25 & PV26 and the Magic PV20

[/b]
[/size]

Essex Police had their own photographic unit which serviced cameras, performed X-rays, issued and developed films etc. etc. A senior member of staff was Fred Carter and it was he that took the X-rays. He would have worked with SOCO photographers like DB

We see from the documents that these two bullets (PV25, PV26) changed into one bullet and some fragments. They had to swap PV25 because it did not come from any firearm at WHF. To achieve this they took one of the 30 rounds on the kitchen top which is why MF only received 29. The cartridge case was used to replace the original and was found by DRH on the 9th August by the wardrobe saying it had been missed, (DRH43). MF received two bullets for PV25 and PV26 not a bullet and fragments.

Other anomalies from the autopsy.

The X-rays were ordered before autopsy. At autopsy PV found two stud earrings but the  X-ray seen by MF states only one in his examination. All of Sheila’s other jewellery is listed with the exception of her Pendant and chain, where did it go?

Reasons to think x-ray might be a fake.

1 The necklace/choker was missing from the autopsy notes unlike the earrings, rings and watch and could be used to fabricate a fake, since the victim cannot be readily identified unless there are distinguishing features such as fillings.

2 The x-ray was a recent acquisition (last 10/11 years). If the defence had not had previous sight of this, whomever sent/produced it might have thought it alone would help Jeremy’s case.

3 The introduction of a fragmented bullet would afford a number of advantages to the police.

(a)   It could be used to cover for a larger calibre round had one been used.

(b)   It could be used to cover for a round fired from another weapon of the same calibre but with
different rifling marks.

(c)   It could be used to insinuate that Sheila was ambulant for any storyline devised to cover any mistakes, when they were pursuing four murders and a suicide and body relocation was an issue.

(d)   It could be used to enhance the argument that Jeremy failed at it first attempt and was reluctantly forced to stage a two shot suicide.

(e)   It could be used to introduce a rogue fragment.

X-ray discussion

The number of fragments is noted by Fletcher on the GER. It is generally accepted that there are 3 large and around 14/15 smaller fragments. Some argue that some of these may be bone fragments. It is likely that PV viewed the x-ray on a light box to assist him at autopsy.

He makes no mention of bone fragments in the autopsy, the follow up report and trial testimony. He only mentions bullet fragmentation in the follow up report. His preoccupation as one would expect is concerned with anatomical damage.

It seems unlikely if bones had been fragmented he would not have reported this. He had three opportunities. He states fractures and lack of displacement only.

A problem with the x-ray is that it does not give a three dimensional view of the fragments and it is therefore difficult to assess each of the fragments in relation to the PV20 photo which itself is not three dimensional. I am not a ballistics expert but find it difficult to associate this with any of the three larger fragments, which given its relative size, are the only ones that are candidates.

The best way to view the fragments for shape is to use the image on the Bamber website and enlarge

The PV20 bullet was first sent to Taylor for examination of blood issues. (see GER) He passed it to MF stating lans and grooves were visible. Notice also that the bag contained blood and tissue which may represent yet another potential blood source for the silencer contamination which was undertaken.

Proving the swap

No one can say what happened at WHF after Jeremy left but before the police entered. The Police may have been able to work out roughly what happened from the original crime scene they viewed.

There is no proof that June was shot in bed. I can prove she was not but that can be explained later if you wish.

There is no proof that Sheila killed them all in one go. Or for that matter that June was not hiding with or without some wounds. There is also a possibility of a Mexican standoff .

I believe the original scenario which they planned involved a restaging and included the shooting of Sheila by June in some manner. For this it required Sheila to be shot with two different weapons. They shot her in the neck after she had committed suicide calling it the first shot.

The fragmentation they constructed provided her with the ability to then go on and kill June because she had only been stunned. If it was known by any of those involved that June was alive either through telephone contact or if in response to the loud hailer, she then presented herself to be viewed. In such circumstances it would be essential to outline how she had died. The ‘met with no response’ record may have been in relation to a request to go to the phone.

I believe the Fragmentation X-ray may have been faked. They used Sheila’s necklace quite possibly on June superimposing the fragments. Did June have pierced ears?

I believe PV20 did lose some of its volume when hitting the bone but not to the extent displayed. The change to the parts list for PV20 is denoted by the carriage/tab return. The words ‘in cervical muscles’ has been added indicating some measure of fragmentation with the use of the plural.

This has to have been inserted because other wordy descriptions show carriage/tab returns and additional/more lines of text.

When the case changed to five murders they had to move to a one gun crime. This meant that they would need to go back to the slightly damaged bullet, the original PV20. However this had lans and grooves associated with a weapon other than the Anschutz. It would have to be swapped.

From this proposition/scenario we see that Vanezis did not take part in the framing of Jeremy but he was aware of what had happened. He knew. He trod a fine line and chose his words and descriptions with care.

The Samples list and Autopsy report were tweaked to hide a shot by the TFG (PV25 autopsy notes) and disguise a wound to create a different scenario (PV20 Samples list).  They forgot to change 'front of head' on the Samples list He was forced to elaborate on Sheila’s abilities after the introduced first shot. He ruled out any meaningful activity.

These two documents represent what they needed for the first case which should have been three murders, a suicide and an accidental shooting. He did try to appear on JB’s side up to a point using some helpful comments like the ‘nutter’ remark. May be he had a guilty conscience or he wanted to distance himself from the police actions.

PV20 was damaged but was never as fragmented as shown on the x-ray. It did not become whole it was never that fragmented.

If Jeremy obtains justice, sooner or later there would have to be an enquiry, may be more than one. PV’s role in events would in all probability be exposed. Not only would it cast a shadow over UK cases he was involved with but he also had a role in the Autopsy of Princess Dianna, pronouncing she was not pregnant . Perhaps more importantly he was seconded from the Home office and played a lead role in the exhumations of mass graves in the former Yugoslavia.
 
Any damage or undermining of his credibility would have widespread ramifications not only for the UK justice system but also for International relations and our standing in the world.

[Bubo bubo]

http://users.skynet.be/dosscrim/jeremybamber/Sheila_Caffell_crime_scene.jpg

Blood on the carpet

[/size]


When police knowingly contaminate a crime scene for their own ends they may have items that need to be moved and hidden so as not to appear in crime scene photos. However blood can only be hidden.
I believe June was shot when she exited the box room into the main bedroom. She may have been heavily bloodstained and maybe carrying a rifle or shotgun.

I have fully examined the bedroom scene and have many observations. However for now I will give you a snippet to explain the toilet mat. I am going to take a break for a while.

I have loads more stuff but it will have to wait.

June’s death a couple of the many possibilities.

June is in the Box room. The TFG follow a blood trail up the back stairs. I believe we can ignore their claim that access to the bedrooms was closed as a lie. There is no radio contact asking what they should do now their task is untenable. They enter the twin’s room and June hears them. Thinking it might be Sheila she exits into the main bedroom and is shot by a second team who have come up the main stairs. She collapses next to the bed where Sheila was supposedly found.

June will not exit the Box room even if she hears the shot of Sheila killing herself. It could be a trick to lure her out. On hearing male voices believing it to be safe, she exits into the Main bedroom and is shot beside the bed.

The priority after their initial shock and horror would be to minimise the blood stain so they put her on the bed while they considered what they would do. Unfortunately the bed was now contaminated with her blood and this led to the need for the story to include, that she was initially shot whilst in bed.
Thirdly moving a heavily blood soaked body would require protection from becoming covered in June’s blood. I set out more on this aspect of their actions later.

The Staging of the bedroom scene

The first part of these proceedings was the forced moving of June to her side of the bed. In order to protect themselves officers wore an overcoat and a plastic mackintosh to protect their clothing. I believe the most likely position for her body was where Sheila was placed. As they moved her, significant amounts of blood dripped onto the carpet leaving a trail that they would subsequently attribute to her mindless travel around the bed and back again. As they eased her onto the bed, blood from their sleeves or because she was placed on her right side stained the left side of the bed and the blood from the head wound dripped across the pillow until she was finally placed and a larger darker stain was caused as it soaked into the pillow.

Why if she was shot where Sheila was found did they not place her on Neville’s side of the bed? Firstly she was in a large pool of blood and they could not accomplish this manoeuvre without stepping in the blood. Their arms were not long enough. Secondly why would she be on what would be seen as the wrong side of the bed?

Placing Sheila by the bed was the best solution to cover the stains at the bedside. Her profile fitted the requirement of something long and narrow.

They lifted Sheila onto a blanket as preparation for the removal of her body. As they did so the now plugged wound was breeched by pressure from pooled blood in her neck and head. They had put her arms into a hands crossed to shoulders position. They would not want her arms to be flapping around. I believe they had difficulty around her bedroom door leading to some of her blood dripping on the landing. The initial movement of her head caused some congealed blood to eject and this led to drops of blood dripping onto her arm possibly in a neat row and forming trails as it re-liquefied as shown in photos. The origins of these trails have been regularly discussed.

They had another problem in that they could not lay Sheila on top of June’s blood since it would soak into her nightie. There was also the risk that any normal more porous covering would allow blood to soak through as her body weight exerted downward pressure. A further problem was that they had run out of ‘Props’ from the room. They needed something small and narrow but no rug was available that fitted the bill. A wider rug could not be used because it would not allow the door to the Box room to open because of lack of clearance.

Huge amounts of blood would have stained the true location and the longer she was left there the larger these stains would have become and the more difficult it would be to hide and/or explain them.
To solve the problem they used a rubber backed Toilet Mat similar in colour to the main rug and planted the socks to give it an air of permanence.

I am sorry about the size of the photo. If you search using Sheila Caffell Pictures, you should find it. Recent new legislation means that the likes of Google et al have removed many photos from all their galleries. What did Caroline do to those on the forum? Many show her with a gap between her outer right thigh and edge of the rug. The reason they pulled on her legs was to enable them to conceal the edges of what looks suspiciously like a toilet mat. If not it is the most weird bedside rug I have ever come across.

However by pulling on her legs they drew her into the space for the toilet pedestal and she ended up with June’s blood on the back of her nightie. It was not from sitting on the bed.

As part of all of this they also had to manipulate the shell casings to complete the story that they planned to tell.

[guest29835]

I have not yet had time to give your posts careful attention, but for now, I would like to call back to a comment I made on a different thread about the bullets.

I have experience with guns, though I would not call myself an expert.

I think there is some uncertainty about exactly what bullets were used where, and it is possible that different bullets were used.  What we can say is that the bullets are very small and, as a general rule of thumb and all things being equal, a hollow point is less frangible than a regular bullet; and, while it may still deform and expand under impact with bone, actual fragmentation of a hollow point could be missed, ignored or overlooked by an expert who is not examining the bullets closely or simply isn't bothering to consider it.

This may account for some of the discrepancies between the observations of different experts.  A forensic pathologist could retrieve fragments and note they are part of bullets, and thus, by a process of deduction, conclude and note that certain bullets are 'fragmented'.  A ballistic expert, on the other hand, may be less careful and precise in his observations, as it may seem a less important question to him and he may not notice that a particular bullet is fragmented.  On possible reason for this is that a ballistic expert may simply assume that all bullets fragment to some degree on impact.

We have an apparent paradox in which a fragmented bullet becomes whole, but the explanation could be merely a mundane inconsistency in the recording of the same exhibit.

When I mentioned this before, Roch challenged me by saying that this is a startling mistake for Fletcher to make, implying that there must be some intent involved.  Indeed, it is a serious mistake for a court expert to make, and I am not lavishing Malcolm Fletcher with praise.  Nevertheless, it could just be a mistake and nothing else.  That said, one point that slightly goes against what I am saying is that Malcolm Fletcher seems to have had not much personal experience with guns.  It would be interesting to know in how many other other firearms cases he was called as a ballistic expert, whether for the prosecution or the defence.

As an aside, I believe Major Mead did put bullets under close examination and/or photographed them.

[Bubo bubo]

I have not yet had time to give your posts careful attention, but for now, I would like to call back to a comment I made on a different thread about the bullets.

I have experience with guns, though I would not call myself an expert.

I think there is some uncertainty about exactly what bullets were used where, and it is possible that different bullets were used.  What we can say is that the bullets are very small and, as a general rule of thumb and all things being equal, a hollow point is less frangible than a regular bullet; and, while it may still deform and expand under impact with bone, actual fragmentation of a hollow point could be missed, ignored or overlooked by an expert who is not examining the bullets closely or simply isn't bothering to consider it.

This may account for some of the discrepancies between the observations of different experts.  A forensic pathologist could retrieve fragments and note they are part of bullets, and thus, by a process of deduction, conclude and note that certain bullets are 'fragmented'.  A ballistic expert, on the other hand, may be less careful and precise in his observations, as it may seem a less important question to him and he may not notice that a particular bullet is fragmented.  On possible reason for this is that a ballistic expert may simply assume that all bullets fragment to some degree on impact.

We have an apparent paradox in which a fragmented bullet becomes whole, but the explanation could be merely a mundane inconsistency in the recording of the same exhibit.

When I mentioned this before, Roch challenged me by saying that this is a startling mistake for Fletcher to make, implying that there must be some intent involved.  Indeed, it is a serious mistake for a court expert to make, and I am not lavishing Malcolm Fletcher with praise.  Nevertheless, it could just be a mistake and nothing else.  That said, one point that slightly goes against what I am saying is that Malcolm Fletcher seems to have had not much personal experience with guns.  It would be interesting to know in how many other other firearms cases he was called as a ballistic expert, whether for the prosecution or the defence.

As an aside, I believe Major Mead did put bullets under close examination and/or photographed them.

I agree with your comments in general terms. However, there is no disputing that PV20 was swapped. NGB has examined this aspect and he has greater ballistics knowledge than you or I.
I would be grateful if you could provide source evidence to substantiate your comment on Major Mead.

[guest29835]

I agree with your comments in general terms. However, there is no disputing that PV20 was swapped. NGB has examined this aspect and he has greater ballistics knowledge than you or I.

I have not seen him say that.  Which thread did he say this in, please?  I am also not clear what makes you conclude he has greater ballistics knowledge than me.  Do you know me?  It doesn't matter to me if he does, but you say there is no disputing that PV20 was swopped.  That's a bold statement, and I'm suddenly intrigued to hear from NG1066 as to what he can say in support of it.

I would be grateful if you could provide source evidence to substantiate your comment on Major Mead.

It's examination photographs made by Major Mead himself and that Mike has uploaded to the Forum. 

[Roch]

It's examination photographs made by Major Mead himself and that Mike has uploaded to the Forum.

Just tried to find them in archive and library but can't see them. I think they are on here somewhere.

[ngb1066]

I have not seen him say that.  Which thread did he say this in, please?  I am also not clear what makes you conclude he has greater ballistics knowledge than me.  Do you know me?  It doesn't matter to me if he does, but you say there is no disputing that PV20 was swopped.  That's a bold statement, and I'm suddenly intrigued to hear from NG1066 as to what he can say in support of it.

It's examination photographs made by Major Mead himself and that Mike has uploaded to the Forum.

I do not claim to be a ballistics expert by any means.  I do have experience of various types of firearm and where I have considered that my experience and knowledge may be of some assistance in relation to the case I have posted here.  If you look back a few years you will find a number of threads in which I have made posts in relation to firearms etc.  What is your knowledge of firearms/ballistics?

.

[Bubo bubo]

 


It is accepted by many that when it comes to Ballistics NGB is amongst the most knowledgeable  non expert on the forum. My analysis has been checked by him via pm. I am sure he will be willing to let you know his response.
I also suggest that you do a search 'Major Mead' of postings by Mike T. He has serious misgivings about PV20 and Mead's findings. It is possible that I am the first to use ratios to prove the swap. If Mead was only given gram weights to check he would not have spotted it but he was given two different gram weights according to MT. It maybe that the only bullet we have both gram and grain weights is PV20 allowing a ratio analysis, since it came to MF via Taylor who examined for blood and tissue reasons and used a gram weight. Mike has thanked me for my contribution on PV20.
The information posted by mike merely states what he did. We have no documentation on the forum.
I do not know you and your relative ballistic knowledge. May I respectfully request you do more research before calling me out.

I have not seen him say that.  Which thread did he say this in, please?  I am also not clear what makes you conclude he has greater ballistics knowledge than me.  Do you know me?  It doesn't matter to me if he does, but you say there is no disputing that PV20 was swopped.  That's a bold statement, and I'm suddenly intrigued to hear from NG1066 as to what he can say in support of it.

It's examination photographs made by Major Mead himself and that Mike has uploaded to the Forum. 

[guest7363]

PV25 & PV26 and the Magic PV20

[/b]
[/size]

Essex Police had their own photographic unit which serviced cameras, performed X-rays, issued and developed films etc. etc. A senior member of staff was Fred Carter and it was he that took the X-rays. He would have worked with SOCO photographers like DB

We see from the documents that these two bullets (PV25, PV26) changed into one bullet and some fragments. They had to swap PV25 because it did not come from any firearm at WHF. To achieve this they took one of the 30 rounds on the kitchen top which is why MF only received 29. The cartridge case was used to replace the original and was found by DRH on the 9th August by the wardrobe saying it had been missed, (DRH43). MF received two bullets for PV25 and PV26 not a bullet and fragments.

Other anomalies from the autopsy.

The X-rays were ordered before autopsy. At autopsy PV found two stud earrings but the  X-ray seen by MF states only one in his examination. All of Sheila’s other jewellery is listed with the exception of her Pendant and chain, where did it go?

Reasons to think x-ray might be a fake.

1 The necklace/choker was missing from the autopsy notes unlike the earrings, rings and watch and could be used to fabricate a fake, since the victim cannot be readily identified unless there are distinguishing features such as fillings.

2 The x-ray was a recent acquisition (last 10/11 years). If the defence had not had previous sight of this, whomever sent/produced it might have thought it alone would help Jeremy’s case.

3 The introduction of a fragmented bullet would afford a number of advantages to the police.

(a)   It could be used to cover for a larger calibre round had one been used.

(b)   It could be used to cover for a round fired from another weapon of the same calibre but with
different rifling marks.

(c)   It could be used to insinuate that Sheila was ambulant for any storyline devised to cover any mistakes, when they were pursuing four murders and a suicide and body relocation was an issue.

(d)   It could be used to enhance the argument that Jeremy failed at it first attempt and was reluctantly forced to stage a two shot suicide.

(e)   It could be used to introduce a rogue fragment.

X-ray discussion

The number of fragments is noted by Fletcher on the GER. It is generally accepted that there are 3 large and around 14/15 smaller fragments. Some argue that some of these may be bone fragments. It is likely that PV viewed the x-ray on a light box to assist him at autopsy.

He makes no mention of bone fragments in the autopsy, the follow up report and trial testimony. He only mentions bullet fragmentation in the follow up report. His preoccupation as one would expect is concerned with anatomical damage.

It seems unlikely if bones had been fragmented he would not have reported this. He had three opportunities. He states fractures and lack of displacement only.

A problem with the x-ray is that it does not give a three dimensional view of the fragments and it is therefore difficult to assess each of the fragments in relation to the PV20 photo which itself is not three dimensional. I am not a ballistics expert but find it difficult to associate this with any of the three larger fragments, which given its relative size, are the only ones that are candidates.

The best way to view the fragments for shape is to use the image on the Bamber website and enlarge

The PV20 bullet was first sent to Taylor for examination of blood issues. (see GER) He passed it to MF stating lans and grooves were visible. Notice also that the bag contained blood and tissue which may represent yet another potential blood source for the silencer contamination which was undertaken.

Proving the swap

No one can say what happened at WHF after Jeremy left but before the police entered. The Police may have been able to work out roughly what happened from the original crime scene they viewed.

There is no proof that June was shot in bed. I can prove she was not but that can be explained later if you wish.

There is no proof that Sheila killed them all in one go. Or for that matter that June was not hiding with or without some wounds. There is also a possibility of a Mexican standoff .

I believe the original scenario which they planned involved a restaging and included the shooting of Sheila by June in some manner. For this it required Sheila to be shot with two different weapons. They shot her in the neck after she had committed suicide calling it the first shot.

The fragmentation they constructed provided her with the ability to then go on and kill June because she had only been stunned. If it was known by any of those involved that June was alive either through telephone contact or if in response to the loud hailer, she then presented herself to be viewed. In such circumstances it would be essential to outline how she had died. The ‘met with no response’ record may have been in relation to a request to go to the phone.

I believe the Fragmentation X-ray may have been faked. They used Sheila’s necklace quite possibly on June superimposing the fragments. Did June have pierced ears?

I believe PV20 did lose some of its volume when hitting the bone but not to the extent displayed. The change to the parts list for PV20 is denoted by the carriage/tab return. The words ‘in cervical muscles’ has been added indicating some measure of fragmentation with the use of the plural.

This has to have been inserted because other wordy descriptions show carriage/tab returns and additional/more lines of text.

When the case changed to five murders they had to move to a one gun crime. This meant that they would need to go back to the slightly damaged bullet, the original PV20. However this had lans and grooves associated with a weapon other than the Anschutz. It would have to be swapped.

From this proposition/scenario we see that Vanezis did not take part in the framing of Jeremy but he was aware of what had happened. He knew. He trod a fine line and chose his words and descriptions with care.

The Samples list and Autopsy report were tweaked to hide a shot by the TFG (PV25 autopsy notes) and disguise a wound to create a different scenario (PV20 Samples list).  They forgot to change 'front of head' on the Samples list He was forced to elaborate on Sheila’s abilities after the introduced first shot. He ruled out any meaningful activity.

These two documents represent what they needed for the first case which should have been three murders, a suicide and an accidental shooting. He did try to appear on JB’s side up to a point using some helpful comments like the ‘nutter’ remark. May be he had a guilty conscience or he wanted to distance himself from the police actions.

PV20 was damaged but was never as fragmented as shown on the x-ray. It did not become whole it was never that fragmented.

If Jeremy obtains justice, sooner or later there would have to be an enquiry, may be more than one. PV’s role in events would in all probability be exposed. Not only would it cast a shadow over UK cases he was involved with but he also had a role in the Autopsy of Princess Dianna, pronouncing she was not pregnant . Perhaps more importantly he was seconded from the Home office and played a lead role in the exhumations of mass graves in the former Yugoslavia.
 
Any damage or undermining of his credibility would have widespread ramifications not only for the UK justice system but also for International relations and our standing in the world.

Why do you list the taking of X-rays before a PM as an anomalies?  Vanezis ordered this himself, I would think he wanted X-rays at the PM or just after as a standard practice? 

[Bubo bubo]

Why do you list the taking of X-rays before a PM as an anomalies?  Vanezis ordered this himself, I would think he wanted X-rays at the PM or just after as a standard practice?

Read what I said. I know it is standard practice and I know he ordered them before he left to come to Chelmsford.
The anomalies centre around the missing necklace/choker and the level of fragmentation etc. I wrote it badly but if you want to nit pick so be it. I started with a single sentence as background for the less well versed forum members.