The drop / pendant earring...

[Bill Robertson]

So can you imagine that being ripped off the ear ? The type of injury it would cause ?

I wonder when the resident Vanezis worshippers are going to explain how he missed the presence of the earring and why he didn’t mention it, or the injury caused when it was ripped off the right ear?

[Jane]

I wonder when the resident Vanezis worshippers are going to explain how he missed the presence of the earring and why he didn’t mention it, or the injury caused when it was ripped off the right ear?

 Since women began having numerous holes in their ears to facilitate several earrings, I fail to see that one being missed would ring alarm bells. What would have, though, is what occurs when an earring is ripped OUT! Having once been the cause of such, I know a little bit about earrings being ripped "off" ears. The tail of the comb I was wielding went through a gold hoop. I hadn't realized and continued the combing motion. It ripped the earring downwards and it exited from the tear. There was blood everywhere!! It dripped on the client's clothes. It sprayed as she turned her head. Earlobes are fleshy. Fleshy bleeds copiously. Such, on Sheila, could not have been mistaken for anything other than a wound.

Incidentally, I find offensive your term "Vanezis worshipper". He worked independently. He was answerable to no one. There was no reason for him to have kept hidden SO obvious an injury.

[Bill Robertson]

He worked independently. He was answerable to no one. There was no reason for him to have kept hidden SO obvious an injury.

Well, there obviously was a reason. It may only become clear after he is charged with perjury, which could be a few years off.
I suspect that he was persuaded by Ainsley that it would be good for his career if he only mentioned things that were helpful to the prosecution and, indeed, Vanezis was rewarded handsomely over the years for being Ainsley's stooge.

Do you not find it strange that Vanezis supposedly did not make a detailed statement about the post-mortems until 30 September, nearly two months after the event? How convenient that details supporting the prosecution of Jeremy are contained in the statement but nothing about numerous other wounds?

I suspect that somewhere in Taff Jones investigation documentation there may well be an earlier version of Vanezis' witness statement in which he does discuss the numerous defensive injuries to all three adult victims.

I was not thinking of you specifically when I made reference to Vanezis worshippers, I had in mind someone who trumpets his so-called professional expertise regularly.

[Jane]

Well, there obviously was a reason. It may only become clear after he is charged with perjury, which could be a few years off.
I suspect that he was persuaded by Ainsley that it would be good for his career if he only mentioned things that were helpful to the prosecution and, indeed, Vanezis was rewarded handsomely over the years for being Ainsley's stooge.

Do you not find it strange that Vanezis supposedly did not make a detailed statement about the post-mortems until 30 September, nearly two months after the event? How convenient that details supporting the prosecution of Jeremy are contained in the statement but nothing about numerous other wounds?

I suspect that somewhere in Taff Jones investigation documentation there may well be an earlier version of Vanezis' witness statement in which he does discuss the numerous defensive injuries to all three adult victims.

I was not thinking of you specifically when I made reference to Vanezis worshippers, I had in mind someone who trumpets his so-called professional expertise regularly.

I'm not clear against whom it is you hold the greatest grudge, Bill, but you appear very determined to 'get' someone.

It's interesting to see that it's not a definitive that Venezis "did not make a detailed statement..............until nearly two months after the event". You say "supposedly. Might it not have been possible that there arose some problems regarding his not being called to the soc? I believe it perfectly possible, IF Ainsley had attempted to manipulate him, he'd have been experienced enough to have smelled the proverbial rat. As I've previously said, between the 5 victims, there were probably 'injuries' aplenty, of the routine, daily type, so not considered worthy of mention. I would not have considered an earring having recently been ripped through an earlobe, to be one such.

[killingeve]

Well, there obviously was a reason. It may only become clear after he is charged with perjury, which could be a few years off.
I suspect that he was persuaded by Ainsley that it would be good for his career if he only mentioned things that were helpful to the prosecution and, indeed, Vanezis was rewarded handsomely over the years for being Ainsley's stooge.

Do you not find it strange that Vanezis supposedly did not make a detailed statement about the post-mortems until 30 September, nearly two months after the event? How convenient that details supporting the prosecution of Jeremy are contained in the statement but nothing about numerous other wounds?

I suspect that somewhere in Taff Jones investigation documentation there may well be an earlier version of Vanezis' witness statement in which he does discuss the numerous defensive injuries to all three adult victims.

I was not thinking of you specifically when I made reference to Vanezis worshippers, I had in mind someone who trumpets his so-called professional expertise regularly.

Not at all since he explained he was awaiting the outcome of toxicology tests.

Home Office pathologists are completely independent of the police.  Are you able to cite a criminal case in the UK where a HO pathologist has conspired with the police to secure a conviction?  Even if a pathologist was happy to put any moral considerations to one side why would he/she put his/her professional status/career and livelihood at stake to assist the police?  And in this case all for a rural Essex farmer? 

Prof Vanezis has always maintained he was unable to conclude murder or suicide.  All his findings were fact checked by Prof Knight for the defence.  Bamber was convicted on the silencer evidence and Julie Mugford's testimony. 

[Roch]

I'm not clear against whom it is you hold the greatest grudge, Bill, but you appear very determined to 'get' someone.

It's interesting to see that it's not a definitive that Venezis "did not make a detailed statement..............until nearly two months after the event". You say "supposedly. Might it not have been possible that there arose some problems regarding his not being called to the soc? I believe it perfectly possible, IF Ainsley had attempted to manipulate him, he'd have been experienced enough to have smelled the proverbial rat. As I've previously said, between the 5 victims, there were probably 'injuries' aplenty, of the routine, daily type, so not considered worthy of mention. I would not have considered an earring having recently been ripped through an earlobe, to be one such.

Jane, with respect, you and Cambridge have just found out, 36 years after the event and probably a decade after your original interest in the case, that Sheila Caffell had a snagged, pendant earring on her nightdress. You only found this out because of me and Bill. You haven't found it out via CAL, who has apparently provided a 'difinitive' version of the case. You haven't found it out from Essex Constabulary or Peter Vanezis. You haven't found it out from those members who cry 'conspiracy theorist!' at every turn on here.

It is not the crown's case that Sheila struggled with Jeremy. It is highly likely that the only reason you're finding out now about this disappeared exhibit, is because during the second investigation, it was decided they didn't want to take the risk of allowing the defence to argue that Sheila had been in an altercation, as evidenced by said earring. They didn't want that level of reasonable doubt in the court room. So the earring was magicked away.

As for Vanezis..  presumably he receives a body that has been temporarily covered by a body bag, in order to preserve evidence. Therefore, what happened to the earring?

If we can see it in images which quite frankly are not crystal clear, then it was visible to all and sundry who cared to look on 7/8/85.

[killingeve]

Jane, with respect, you and Cambridge have just found out, 36 years after the event and probably a decade after your original interest in the case, that Sheila Caffell had a snagged, pendant earring on her nightdress. You only found this out because of me and Bill.You haven't found it out via CAL, who has apparently provided a 'difinitive' version of the case. You haven't found it out from Essex Constabulary or Peter Vanezis. You haven't found it out from those members who cry 'conspiracy theorist!' at every turn on here.

It is not the crown's case that Sheila struggled with Jeremy. It is highly likely that the only reason you're finding out now about this disappeared exhibit, is because during the second investigation, it was decided they didn't want to take the risk of allowing the defence to argue that Sheila had been in an altercation, as evidenced by said earring. They didn't want that level of reasonable doubt in the court room. So the earring was magicked away.

As for Vanezis..  presumably he receives a body that has been temporarily covered by a body bag, in order to preserve evidence. Therefore, what happened to the earring?

If we can see it in images which quite frankly are not crystal clear, then it was visible to all and sundry who cared to look on 7/8/85.

WHAT?!

I can't speak for Jane but I haven't learned anything from you and Bill about any aspect of the pathological evidence.  I think the pair of you are completely wrong about overlooked defence wounds and a snagged earring. 

[JackieD]

Jane, with respect, you and Cambridge have just found out, 36 years after the event and probably a decade after your original interest in the case, that Sheila Caffell had a snagged, pendant earring on her nightdress. You only found this out because of me and Bill. You haven't found it out via CAL, who has apparently provided a 'difinitive' version of the case. You haven't found it out from Essex Constabulary or Peter Vanezis. You haven't found it out from those members who cry 'conspiracy theorist!' at every turn on here.

It is not the crown's case that Sheila struggled with Jeremy. It is highly likely that the only reason you're finding out now about this disappeared exhibit, is because during the second investigation, it was decided they didn't want to take the risk of allowing the defence to argue that Sheila had been in an altercation, as evidenced by said earring. They didn't want that level of reasonable doubt in the court room. So the earring was magicked away.

As for Vanezis..  presumably he receives a body that has been temporarily covered by a body bag, in order to preserve evidence. Therefore, what happened to the earring?

If we can see it in images which quite frankly are not crystal clear, then it was visible to all and sundry who cared to look on 7/8/85.

I want to know why anyone would think this evidence is not important . Of course this has to be explained. No excuses and no cover ups

[Roch]

WHAT?!

I can't speak for Jane but I haven't learned anything from you and Bill about any aspect of the pathological evidence.  I think the pair of you are completely wrong about overlooked defence wounds and a snagged earring.

You are making a fool of yourself. The snagged earring is there for all to see.  I respectfully suggest that you would be better off displaying some humility and by conceding it is present in the images.

It's a shot across the bows - because there is plenty other pathological evidence that me and Bill have also cited, which also exists.

[lookout]

WHAT?!

I can't speak for Jane but I haven't learned anything from you and Bill about any aspect of the pathological evidence.  I think the pair of you are completely wrong about overlooked defence wounds and a snagged earring.

But Roch and Bill AREN'T WRONG about this finding as I can also verify that !! I sincerely hope that in due course that everyone will recognise that it was a deliberate " tackle" to cause as much pain as was experienced at the time-----such as in two women who were defending themselves against each other.

[David1819]

I wonder when the resident Vanezis worshippers are going to explain how he missed the presence of the earring and why he didn’t mention it, or the injury caused when it was ripped off the right ear?

Il explain it now. He "missed" all the things you mention because they simply never existed in the first place.

[David1819]

Well, there obviously was a reason. It may only become clear after he is charged with perjury, which could be a few years off.
I suspect that he was persuaded by Ainsley that it would be good for his career if he only mentioned things that were helpful to the prosecution and, indeed, Vanezis was rewarded handsomely over the years for being Ainsley's stooge.

Do you not find it strange that Vanezis supposedly did not make a detailed statement about the post-mortems until 30 September, nearly two months after the event? How convenient that details supporting the prosecution of Jeremy are contained in the statement but nothing about numerous other wounds?

I suspect that somewhere in Taff Jones investigation documentation there may well be an earlier version of Vanezis' witness statement in which he does discuss the numerous defensive injuries to all three adult victims.

I was not thinking of you specifically when I made reference to Vanezis worshippers, I had in mind someone who trumpets his so-called professional expertise regularly.

 



JB will be out by Christmas 2017. Put money on it.👍

[Roch]

JB will be out by Christmas 2017. Put money on it.👍

Most of JB's supporters have expressed over exuberant optimism at some point. McKay did in 2012. It's born in part from an urge to overturn wrongdoing.

[Roch]

Il explain it now. He "missed" all the things you mention because they simply never existed in the first place.

You might as well post what alternative explanation you have for the earring, so that we can explore it.

As for the wounds - how did Sheila manage to kill two adults in a confined space with furniture, including using the rifle as a club, without obtaining any marks on her own person in the process? 

[Armchair Detective]

I'm quite happy to say that it looks like a snagged earring to me but I have yet to see any evidence of a damaged earlobe which I would imagine would bleed quite a lot so reserve my judgement about the significance of this.

With respect to Bill and Roch, you can't expect us to believe you have won the lottery when you only reveal one number, we need to see all six, especially with JB's long history of grandiose claims and bare faced lies.