The drop / pendant earring...

[Roch]

Personally I find David's argument unreasonable. When police were hunting the bus stop killer, they honed in on a white van parked next to Twickenham Green. They did everything they could improve the image in order to read the number plate but just couldn't get it clear enough. If they had got the image clear enough to read, would David say 'aah, you can't use that number plate because you created it by trying to make the image clearer'?

[killingeve]

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.

Humility?  I'm not the one accusing two highly qualified pathologists of long experience over decades of incompetence and/or wrongdoing.  Both have unblemished careers and yet you expect me to believe that in this case both overlooked damage to Sheila's lobe and various wounds on all adult victims.   

You conveniently overlook that a convicted fraudster had access to the files and images by the name of Giovanni De Stefano.  Firstly those making the claims need expert opinion to establish the images are authentic and undoctored.  Secondly expert forensic pathological opinion is needed to establish the claims. 

Why would Prof Vanezis note Sheila's stud earrings, nicotine stains to fingers, old scars, stretch marks and the fact she was menstruating and had an iud fitted, but overlook damage to her earlobe (and various wounds on all adult victims)?  Why would Prof Knight for the defence also overlook?  If the pair of them were so incompetent, or worse, then why has nothing come to light with the thousands of other cases they've presided over?

[killingeve]

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.

No of course they're not    They know far more than Prof's Vanezis and Knight 

You conveniently overlook that a convicted fraudster had access to the files and images by the name of Giovanni De Stefano.  Firstly those making the claims need expert opinion to establish the images are authentic and undoctored.  Secondly expert forensic pathological opinion is needed to establish the claims. 

Why would Prof Vanezis note Sheila's stud earrings, nicotine stains to fingers, old scars, stretch marks and the fact she was menstruating and had an iud fitted, but overlook damage to her earlobe (and various wounds on all adult victims)?  Why would Prof Knight for the defence also overlook?  If the pair of them were so incompetent, or worse, then why has nothing come to light with the thousands of other cases they've presided over?

You're always telling the forum that you're a great judge of character and never hoodwinked and yet you seem only too happy to rely on images that have been in the hands of a convicted fraudster!?

[lookout]

No of course they're not    They know far more than Prof's Vanezis and Knight 

You conveniently overlook that a convicted fraudster had access to the files and images by the name of Giovanni De Stefano.  Firstly those making the claims need expert opinion to establish the images are authentic and undoctored.  Secondly expert forensic pathological opinion is needed to establish the claims. 

Why would Prof Vanezis note Sheila's stud earrings, nicotine stains to fingers, old scars, stretch marks and the fact she was menstruating and had an iud fitted, but overlook damage to her earlobe (and various wounds on all adult victims)?  Why would Prof Knight for the defence also overlook?  If the pair of them were so incompetent, or worse, then why has nothing come to light with the thousands of other cases they've presided over?

You're always telling the forum that you're a great judge of character and never hoodwinked and yet you seem only too happy to rely on images that have been in the hands of a convicted fraudster!?

I've NEVER followed Giovanni de Stefano whatsoever. How dare you !!

[Bill Robertson]

You conveniently overlook that a convicted fraudster had access to the files and images by the name of Giovanni De Stefano. 

De Stafano left the scene long before the images were sold to the CT. He had no access to them.

[lookout]

I've NEVER followed Giovanni de Stefano whatsoever. How dare you !!

Unlike yourself there are very few legal subjects that I WOULD trust !

[killingeve]

I've NEVER followed Giovanni de Stefano whatsoever. How dare you !!

But that's the whole point you might well be following him since the Bamber case files were in his possession at one time.

[killingeve]

De Stafano left the scene long before the images were sold to the CT. He had no access to them.

The Bamber case files are some 36 years old.  During which they've been all round the houses and in the hands of known criminals.  Anything and everything should be treated with extreme caution especially claims by Bamber and his supporters which are at odds with opinion from two highly qualified forensic pathologists of long experience with unblemished careers.

[lookout]

But that's the whole point you might well be following him since the Bamber case files were in his possession at one time.

I never did follow him. Why are you saying these things ? My interests initially were from outside of this forum with those who were in the know----who had the correct information which is why I'm 100% certain that JB is innocent.

[lookout]

The Bamber case files are some 36 years old.  During which they've been all round the houses and in the hands of known criminals.  Anything and everything should be treated with extreme caution especially claims by Bamber and his supporters which are at odds with opinion from two highly qualified forensic pathologists of long experience with unblemished careers.

 Spec-savers must have made a mistake with you, giving you rose-tinted ones.

[killingeve]

I never did follow him. Why are you saying these things ? My interests initially were from outside of this forum with those who were in the know----who had the correct information which is why I'm 100% certain that JB is innocent.

I am saying these things because the Bamber case files are some 36 years old and have been all round the houses including in the hands of known criminals.   

The fact you're 100% certain Bamber is innocent is neither here nor there if you don't have the evidence capable of influencing the CCRC/CoA to the extent the latter quash the conviction. 

Spec-savers must have made a mistake with you, giving you rose-tinted ones.

Your time would be better spent understanding the case against Bamber instead of sarky comments aimed at me.

[lookout]

I am saying these things because the Bamber case files are some 36 years old and have been all round the houses including in the hands of known criminals.   

The fact you're 100% certain Bamber is innocent is neither here nor there if you don't have the evidence capable of influencing the CCRC/CoA to the extent the latter quash the conviction. 

Your time would be better spent understanding the case against Bamber instead of sarky comments aimed at me.

What about your own " sarky " comments about me following the like of Giovanni Stefano ? Or is it only you who is allowed to do the insulting ?

[Roch]

Humility?  I'm not the one accusing two highly qualified pathologists of long experience over decades of incompetence and/or wrongdoing.  Both have unblemished careers and yet you expect me to believe that in this case both overlooked damage to Sheila's lobe and various wounds on all adult victims.   

You conveniently overlook that a convicted fraudster had access to the files and images by the name of Giovanni De Stefano.  Firstly those making the claims need expert opinion to establish the images are authentic and undoctored.  Secondly expert forensic pathological opinion is needed to establish the claims. 

Why would Prof Vanezis note Sheila's stud earrings, nicotine stains to fingers, old scars, stretch marks and the fact she was menstruating and had an iud fitted, but overlook damage to her earlobe (and various wounds on all adult victims)?  Why would Prof Knight for the defence also overlook?  If the pair of them were so incompetent, or worse, then why has nothing come to light with the thousands of other cases they've presided over?

Pathological details which were irrelevant to whether or not she carried out the killings were not screened out. So there was no need for nicotined fingers to be missing. Nor stretch marks etc etc.

You cannot possibly know whether both had unblemished careers. QC recently showed that Knight was a pathologist for the prosecution in an MOJ (not that I am saying Knight did anything wrong - I am not familiar with the case).

You were recently shown that Vanezis was involved in a controversial Malaysian case, for the authorities. He was also involved in a UK wrongful conviction. Unless you have canvassed a sample of pathologists regarding PV's professional reputation, I doubt you can trumpet his rep here.

I'm afraid that the discovery of the pendant earring snagged on her nightdress is a case of sour grapes for you. It throws up all sorts of questions that you cannot allow your self to encompass.

[lookout]

I am saying these things because the Bamber case files are some 36 years old and have been all round the houses including in the hands of known criminals.   

The fact you're 100% certain Bamber is innocent is neither here nor there if you don't have the evidence capable of influencing the CCRC/CoA to the extent the latter quash the conviction. 

Your time would be better spent understanding the case against Bamber instead of sarky comments aimed at me.

Pity you didn't have more understanding of the case than you profess to have !!

[David1819]

In the photo attached, the alleged earring appears as the same colour as the nightdress. Will Roch and Bill now claim the other half dozen or so blood voids by Sheila breast are earrings also?