CCRC have proof of additional wounds

[Roch]

So claim the CT:

[Bill Robertson]

So claim the CT:

So Bill was right all the time

[Roch]

So Bill was right all the time

Yes, you were told that the wounds did not form any part of the submissions, as there was no direct reference to them in CT info regarding the grounds.

[Bill Robertson]

Yes, you were told that the wounds did not form any part of the submissions, as there was no direct reference to them in CT info regarding the grounds.

I have never posted anything inaccurate or misleading on anything related to the case. Guilters will need to get used to the idea that the wounds exist and  Vanezis lied.

[gringo]

So claim the CT:

    https://twitter.com/Bambertweets/status/1695868941560586289

     Do you know when the evidence showing the injuries was given to the CCRC, Bill? Can it be retrieved from the CCRC and given to charity, "APPEAL", who are much more likely to effectively investigate the evidence 

[Roch]

    https://twitter.com/Bambertweets/status/1695868941560586289

     Do you know when the evidence showing the injuries was given to the CCRC, Bill? Can it be retrieved from the CCRC and given to charity, "APPEAL", who are much more likely to effectively investigate the evidence 

I don't know much about Appeal, have they been around long? I imagine that given the CT have been around for yonks, they would covet the evidence.

[Bill Robertson]

    https://twitter.com/Bambertweets/status/1695868941560586289

     Do you know when the evidence showing the injuries was given to the CCRC, Bill? Can it be retrieved from the CCRC and given to charity, "APPEAL", who are much more likely to effectively investigate the evidence 

The CCRC have had the evidence for 2.5 years. APPEAL are a small charity which works on 6 cases at a time. They have been around for 15 years approximately. I don’t think that they would speed up the process at this stage, the CCRC must be about to make a decision.

[Zoso]

So claim the CT:

Oh come on! 

[Zoso]

I have never posted anything inaccurate or misleading on anything related to the case. Guilters will need to get used to the idea that the wounds exist and  Vanezis lied.

Sorry, they won't have to get used to anything - the CT saying something (and yourself) really isn't proof of anything. I would love to know HOW the defence missed such wounds because they would have had access to autopsy photographs. The pictures you posted on the CCRC site are fuzzy beyond credibility and those you have identified as wounds on the crime scene photo's are nothing of the sort.

[Roch]

Oh come on! 

There was a previous accusation that the wounds had not been included in the submissions, because they weren't directly referred to in the grounds listed by the CT.

Sorry, they won't have to get used to anything - the CT saying something (and yourself) really isn't proof of anything. I would love to know HOW the defence missed such wounds because they would have had access to autopsy photographs. The pictures you posted on the CCRC site are fuzzy beyond credibility and those you have identified as wounds on the crime scene photo's are nothing of the sort.

Are they fuzzy?

https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/exploring-the-white-house-farm-murders-and-additional-injuries-to-the-adult-victims-not-disclosed-at

If nothing of the sort, then what are they? Is it feasible to blanket explain away every mark? Because that is what you are effectively doing.

[Jane]

There was a previous accusation that the wounds had not been included in the submissions, because they weren't directly referred to in the grounds listed by the CT.

Are they fuzzy?

https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/exploring-the-white-house-farm-murders-and-additional-injuries-to-the-adult-victims-not-disclosed-at

If nothing of the sort, then what are they? Is it feasible to blanket explain away every mark? Because that is what you are effectively doing.

In one particular picture, whilst the size of the arm can be matched to mine, the 'wounds' appear to have grown exponentially!!!

[Zoso]

There was a previous accusation that the wounds had not been included in the submissions, because they weren't directly referred to in the grounds listed by the CT.

Are they fuzzy?

https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/exploring-the-white-house-farm-murders-and-additional-injuries-to-the-adult-victims-not-disclosed-at

If nothing of the sort, then what are they? Is it feasible to blanket explain away every mark? Because that is what you are effectively doing.

Did the legal team submit them or did Bill? I believe anyone can make a submission? Anyhoo - not sure what difference that makes?

If PV lied, how come these marks aren't in his original notes and if you believe that even his notes were written at a later date, why don't they both state that Sheila's hands were clean and free from blood? And before you ask me why they differ, I have no idea but perhaps Bill would like to contact him instead of just calling him a liar?

[gringo]

I don't know much about Appeal, have they been around long? I imagine that given the CT have been around for yonks, they would covet the evidence.

   You don't know much about the charity, APPEAL? Erm... Andy Malkinson? You started the thread about Andy Malkinson, Roch, whose conviction was overturned because of their work. The smiley face at the end should have alerted you that the suggestion was "tongue in cheek". I assumed you would "get" the APPEAL reference having previously commented on them.
     

[Zoso]

Are they fuzzy?

https://empowerinnocent.wixsite.com/ccrcwatch/post/exploring-the-white-house-farm-murders-and-additional-injuries-to-the-adult-victims-not-disclosed-at

Many of those associated with Sheila are very fuzzy. Also to call those blood stains on Junes hand 'grazes' - please!!!! The amount of assumption made in the text is ridiculous and just reads like an armchair detective on acid. No disrespect but there is no way it will be taken seriously.

[Roch]

   You don't know much about the charity, APPEAL? Erm... Andy Malkinson? You started the thread about Andy Malkinson, Roch, whose conviction was overturned because of their work. The smiley face at the end should have alerted you that the suggestion was "tongue in cheek". I assumed you would "get" the APPEAL reference having previously commented on them.
   

Yes, sorry I know about their involvement. I just meant I didn't know anything about their organisation etc. I did read on here that you suggested they could probably do a better job then the CCRC.