The drop / pendant earring...

[Roch]

The blue folder (defence bundle) that contained the crime scene photos used at JBs 1985 trial appears in a 2005 documentary. Being held by his then defence advocate Giovanni Di-Stefano. That should give you an idea.

This looks like a relatively lo-def image.  after a considerable tussle, the CCRC released some negatives to the defence, that were owned by Essex Police photography Dept.  This event occurred long after 2005.

[Bill Robertson]

I have e-mailed this article to Dr Vanezis. I would be surprised if he gets back to me. But its worth a try. 

Any word from Pete yet?
He has not contacted CCRC Watch to dispute anything in the article - seems like he accepts that it is correct.

[David1819]

Any word from Pete yet?
He has not contacted CCRC Watch to dispute anything in the article - seems like he accepts that it is correct.

What a ridiculous far reaching assumption. How do you know he has even bothered to read it?

[Roch]

What a ridiculous far reaching assumption. How do you know he has even bothered to read it?

He's probably used to complaints...

https://sunaina2009.tripod.com/id10.html

[Jane]

He's probably used to complaints...

https://sunaina2009.tripod.com/id10.html

...or treats it with the contempt he feels it deserves.

[Roch]

...or treats it with the contempt he feels it deserves.

Why, because he's a pathologist and on that reason alone, he can do no wrong?  He also waded in to undermine the clamour from approximately 13 doctors, for further investigations in the post mortem for David Kelly.

He also helped wrongfully imprison a man for 7 years.

He also produced findings in favour of the authorities in a controversial case in Malaysia (or similar country). Findings which were later contested by another pathologist, not acting on behalf of the authorities.

I have no doubt there are probably other Vanezis controversies, lurking, waiting to come to light.

[Jane]

Why, because he's a pathologist and on that reason alone, he can do no wrong?  He also waded in to undermine the clamour from approximately 13 doctors, for further investigations in the post mortem for David Kelly.

He also helped wrongfully imprison a man for 7 years.

He also produced findings in favour of the authorities in a controversial case in Malaysia (or similar country). Findings which were later contested by another pathologist, not acting on behalf of the authorities.

I have no doubt there are probably other Vanezis controversies, lurking, waiting to come to light.

I'm guessing you can't wait for that to happen, Roch? Name me one other person -and I'm including you and me in that- who hasn't made errors of judgement.

Incidentally, whilst he may have contributed to wrongful imprisonment, I doubt that he was solely responsible for it.

[Roch]

I'm guessing you can't wait for that to happen, Roch? Name me one other person -and I'm including you and me in that- who hasn't made errors of judgement.

Incidentally, whilst he may have contributed to wrongful imprisonment, I doubt that he was solely responsible for it.

Jane, no disrespect but I don't think the penny has dropped for many of the members on here regarding the marks on Sheila's wrist. The penny has dropped for David - and he is stumped. But he can't bring himself to admit this.  So he is thrown back upon contriving whimsical explanations as to how the blood got there in the form that it did. Even to the point where he undermines Vanezis' own claims. Can you and others not see the irony in that? In order to shore up Vanezis, a supporter has had to theorise an explanation that is contrary to Vanezis' own explanation?

[David1819]

He's probably used to complaints...

https://sunaina2009.tripod.com/id10.html

I think It comes with the territory of being a prominent pathologist.

You will always now and then have friends, loved ones and relatives of the deceased you examined, not agreeing with your conclusions or believing you are no good because they have a hard time accepting whatever happened. On top of that, any well know case you get involved in is going to attract conspiracy theorists who will also not say good things about you.

[David1819]

Jane, no disrespect but I don't think the penny has dropped for many of the members on here regarding the marks on Sheila's wrist. The penny has dropped for David - and he is stumped. But he can't bring himself to admit this.  So he is thrown back upon contriving whimsical explanations as to how the blood got there in the form that it did. Even to the point where he undermines Vanezis' own claims. Can you and others not see the irony in that? In order to shore up Vanezis, a supporter has had to theorise an explanation that is contrary to Vanezis' own explanation?

In your fantasy world I may be "stumped". The reality is Bill has been peddling this idea for years now,  and has only convinced one person who is a conspiratard. All while being refuted and dismissed by everyone else.

[snow66!]

Jane, no disrespect but I don't think the penny has dropped for many of the members on here regarding the marks on Sheila's wrist. The penny has dropped for David - and he is stumped. But he can't bring himself to admit this.  So he is thrown back upon contriving whimsical explanations as to how the blood got there in the form that it did. Even to the point where he undermines Vanezis' own claims. Can you and others not see the irony in that? In order to shore up Vanezis, a supporter has had to theorise an explanation that is contrary to Vanezis' own explanation?

Hi Roch,what view does Bill and yourself take about Sheila washing and changing clothes after the shooting?

[lookout]

I'm almost certain that Sheila left heavily bloodied day clothes soaking. First there were 3 buckets of soaking clothes which turned into two. For 1 pair of drawers and the twins trousers/jeans ? Who are they kidding ?

[Roch]

In your fantasy world I may be "stumped". The reality is Bill has been peddling this idea for years now,  and has only convinced one person who is a conspiratard. All while being refuted and dismissed by everyone else.

This is nothing more than bluster David. You literally have no feasible explanation, as to how blood could transfer to her wrist and then, as if by magic, freeze in one place, without running in any other direction.

Remember, in order to understand what happened, you have to work out the following:

Where the source of the transfer originated.

When the transfer occurred.

When it froze in its tracks.

Why it froze in its tracks.

You're beat David. You can't provide adequate explanations. Regardless of what happens re the CCRC, it's over for you on this issue. You are soundly beaten.

[snow66!]

I'm almost certain that Sheila left heavily bloodied day clothes soaking. First there were 3 buckets of soaking clothes which turned into two. For 1 pair of drawers and the twins trousers/jeans ? Who are they kidding ?

I can only see two buckets in the crime scene photos Lookout.

[Roch]

Hi Roch,what view does Bill and yourself take about Sheila washing and changing clothes after the shooting?

Hi Snow, I don't have an opinion on it. I'm not saying that she never washed or changed anything whatsoever at any point. However, I think substantial washing is unlikely. It would have washed away the marks on her arms, wrist, hand etc.