OK, let's break this down...
June and Sheila got into a massive brawl and inflicted 70 cuts on their arms and legs. Lets ignore the fact that all the bloodstains are actually bloodstains and thus appear as such.
Why would it be a mass brawl? Why not a life or death struggle? If Sheila was the perpetrator as you believe... and the twins were at risk... and Sheila was at risk of suicide... and Nevill and June were at risk of receiving violence at Sheila's hands.. (basically any combination of the afore mentioned) then that is a fight or flight situation for June. As for any shots received on the bed by June.. such shots could have been received because she was cowering there exhausted after losing such a fight. We don't even know if any wounds were from an earlier incident that was somehow diffused.
As for your second sentence - Bloodstains do not mimic cuts, gouges, grazes and nicks. Nor does flowing blood cause indentations on the skin. Nor does flowing blood cause scrape marks on the skin.
Lets ignore the fact DS Woodcock noted the bloodstains on Junes legs and never mentioned cuts.
I find it hard to understand how there are cuts on June's legs without bruising. However, I also find it hard to understand how the marks were formed, if all they are is bloodstains. We are referring to the horizontal marks on her shins here - not the self evident bloodstaining also present. A statement by Woodcock that includes mention of bloodstains is not problematic for the prosecution. If he ever did mention cuts, in theory it could have been removed from the final version.
Lets ignore the fact the autopsy notes written on the very same day (prior to JB being a suspect) never mention cuts.
Knight criticises Vanezis for not going in to enough detail regarding the gunshot wounds, adding the caveat that Vanezis would have been under pressure due to the multiple victims. Perhaps Vanezis' views regarding who was culpable for the killings was coloured by the minor wounds, which tell their own story. However, since his main focus was the gunshot wounds, it's possible he omitted to mention the minor wounds. Such an omission could have later been very helpful to the second investigation (the narrative of which, Vanezis was to some extent co-opted in to, by time of trial).
Lets ignore the fact the deputy Coroner Mr Thompkin along with DI Cook and DS Miller never mentioned or noticed the 70 cuts despite being present at the autopsy.
I expect Miller was thick as thieves with Ainsley and Cook, the actions of latter two having eventually led to complaints being submitted to the CCRC. As for Tompkin - is it your suggestion that he closely monitored events? In any event, Tomkins did go along with the 4&1 theory, releasing bodies for cremation etc. So I'm not sure what point you are making by including him here.
Lets ignore the fact Bernard Knight and Prof Leon Mcdonell realised they were bloodstains.
I think Knight would have been focussed on the gunshot wounds. We do not know the brief he was given by Rivlin. As for Macdonnell, whatever images he viewed, they were not sufficient for anyone to cotton on to the presence of wounds. This only came much later, after the release of negatives from EP photography dept, to CCRC, to defence.
Lets ignore the fact June was shot in bed half a dozen times while asleep thus contradicting the entire scenario.
See above. You do not know the circumstances of how / when June received the shots that she did. Claiming she was asleep sounds like an Adamisation.
Lets ignore the fact Taff Jones and ACC Simpson never mentioned anything of this nature while trying to get the relatives off their back.
You do not know what either of these men said, when trying to get the relatives off their back. Unfortunately, neither Ann nor Robert went in to any detail about such conversations.
Lets ignore the fact Vanezis stated in his autopsy notes that Sheila killed the other four victims and then herself.
Probably because he saw all the wounds we are arguing about today. It's not brain surgery.
Then we must ignore the blood trials going down Sheila's nightdress that coincide with the runs on her arm.
You will have to demonstrate this to help me and others understand what you're arguing.
Lets ignore the fact Vanezis thought the murder suicide theory was "prevailing".
In what context did he say this... and when did he say it? Also see above.
Lets claim the bloodstains are cuts and conjure up a huge conspiracy theory out of thin air to explain all the problems with this idea.
No, let's just use our eyes and common sense.
This is the key to JBs freedom! JB will be out by Christmas. Put money on it 👍
Not really.. the article probably mocks the deferential attitude that the CCRC display towards original experts. i have repeatedly said I think JB will die in prison.
