More On the 2021 CCRC Submission

[Cambridgecutie]

Re the post above, I agree Bamber's CT are utterly useless but the idea that a novice with a £50 piece of equipment is able to see more than a) the pathologist who undertook the post mortems saw and b) the defence pathologist saw in crime scene images and other material is simply not credible.

[Adam]

Sheila could have had one of her meltdowns, we don't know do we ?

And burnt Nevill's back 3 times while he was alive. Without inflicting any other injuries on Nevill or receiving any injuries herself.

[Roch]

Re the post above, I agree Bamber's CT are utterly useless but the idea that a novice with a £50 piece of equipment is able to see more than a) the pathologist who undertook the post mortems saw and b) the defence pathologist saw in crime scene images and other material is simply not credible.

Vanezis is a controversial character. I don't think we should assume his work is necessarily bonafide in every situation.

[David1819]

Re the post above, I agree Bamber's CT are utterly useless

Says she who wanted to hire DMS QC to represent Jeremy because she finds his attractive and impressed by his Skiing credentials.

but the idea that a novice with a £50 piece of equipment is able to see more than a) the pathologist who undertook the post mortems saw and b) the defence pathologist saw in crime scene images and other material is simply not credible.

Says she who believes the same pathologists failed to notice surgical marks on Nevills back and mistook them all for something entirely different. Despite noticing the surgical marks on Sheila's breasts and Nevills medial records being in the case files.

[Bubo bubo]

Pathologists are not infallible.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-476407/Lethal-witness-How-legendary-pathologist-Bernard-Spilsburys-evidence-fatally-flawed.html

[David1819]

Pathologists are not infallible.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-476407/Lethal-witness-How-legendary-pathologist-Bernard-Spilsburys-evidence-fatally-flawed.html

That's why you have peer reviews and second opinions.

In regards to Bamber, you have 4 pathologists and one bloodstains expert that have all mistook what Bill alleges to exist.

[lookout]

And burnt Nevill's back 3 times while he was alive. Without inflicting any other injuries on Nevill or receiving any injuries herself.

But Sheila DID have some kind of injury/trauma to her lower body of which no detail was given.

[lookout]

Pathologists are not infallible.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-476407/Lethal-witness-How-legendary-pathologist-Bernard-Spilsburys-evidence-fatally-flawed.html

Which always takes me back to the Ian Tomlinson case where the initial verdict of death was " natural causes ", as stated by a crooked pathologist working in conjunction with officers involved until a second post-mortem found extensive internal damage, thus charging the officer involved with manslaughter. A shocking case involving a near cover-up only for the family demanding justice.   

[Bubo bubo]

That's why you have peer reviews and second opinions.

In regards to Bamber, you have 4 pathologists and one bloodstains expert that have all mistook what Bill alleges to exist.

I am not carrying a torch for BR. Vanezis  took part in the cover up only for him to be trapped when the family changed the course of the investigation. He went on holiday and only produced his final Autopsy report after JB was charged.

[Roch]

That's why you have peer reviews and second opinions.

In regards to Bamber, you have 4 pathologists and one bloodstains expert that have all mistook what Bill alleges to exist.

Knight and the blood expert weren't looking for such wounds. The vast majority of people have a pair of eyes. For all you know it, your own eyesight may be better than either of those individuals.

[David1819]

Knight and the blood expert weren't looking for such wounds. The vast majority of people have a pair of eyes. For all you know it, your own eyesight may be better than either of those individuals.

They cannot look for things that are not there. Hence they never commented on such. But they did comment on the blood streaks on Sheila's arm.

PS have you managed to work out an explanation for how blood can be flowing both downwards and upwards at the same time? 

[Roch]

They cannot look for things that are not there. Hence they never commented on such. But they did comment on the blood streaks on Sheila's arm.

PS have you managed to work out an explanation for how blood can be flowing both downwards and upwards at the same time? 

I already answered. The wounds to Sheila's wrist were not inflicted while she was in the position depicted. (Rhyme not intended). They are from earlier on in the incident.

[David1819]

I already answered. The wounds to Sheila's wrist were not inflicted while she was in the position depicted. (Rhyme not intended). They are from earlier on in the incident.

So how is the alleged cut on her shoulder is still flowing while the others are not? The alleged wounds on her arm just so happen to appear as blood streaks going in the same direction as all the other blood while she lays flat? 

[Roch]

So how is the alleged cut on her shoulder is still flowing while the others are not? The alleged wounds on her arm just so happen to appear as blood streaks going in the same direction as all the other blood while she lays flat? 

You seem to be pinning a lot of hopes on the shoulder cut not being a cut. That mark was discovered long after anything previously discussed on here. All marks should viewed distinctly as well as being considered collectively or in tandem. Therefore, a cut on her shoulder that isn't a cut, does not impact on other marks actually being a cut. I hope this makes sense.

Re her wrist, if we look at your take on things, there needs to be a source for the runs that you see as gravitational in one direction. However, as can be seen by looking closely, there is no such source. You can see her skin, where you should see a blood source. You've got the runs the wrong way round.

[David1819]

You seem to be pinning a lot of hopes on the shoulder cut not being a cut. That mark was discovered long after anything previously discussed on here. All marks should viewed distinctly as well as being considered collectively or in tandem. Therefore, a cut on her shoulder that isn't a cut, does not impact on other marks actually being a cut. I hope this makes sense.

Re her wrist, if we look at your take on things, there needs to be a source for the runs that you see as gravitational in one direction. However, as can be seen by looking closely, there is no such source. You can see her skin, where you should see a blood source. You've got the runs the wrong way round.

Bill is alleging its a cut and blood flowing out of it via gravity where she lay. Thus he needs to explain how the alleged cuts on her wrist is not flowing in the same direction while Sheila is in the same position.

The source of blood is from her neck wounds as has been established. But being a conspirartard you don't have the critcial thinking ability to understand how.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.3790