CCRC have proof of additional wounds

[Bill Robertson]

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.

I doubt if the defence even looked at any photos. Rivlin signed a statement of facts months before the trial agreeing with the prosecution that JB was guilty. Ainsley commented that the defence only spent one or two days examining statements at Witham. It’s obvious from Rivlin’s behavior at the trial that he was going through the motions. Likewise, I doubt if anybody else connected with the defence bothered to look at the photographs, let alone study them in detail.

[Roch]

I doubt if the defence even looked at any photos. Rivlin signed a statement of facts months before the trial agreeing with the prosecution that JB was guilty. Ainsley commented that the defence only spent one or two days examining statements at Witham. It’s obvious from Rivlin’s behavior at the trial that he was going through the motions. Likewise, I doubt if anybody else connected with the defence bothered to look at the photographs, let alone study them in detail.

Hi Bill, I think somebody in the beginning went to look at negatives? But didn't spend long doing so.

[Bill Robertson]

Hi Bill, I think somebody in the beginning went to look at negatives? But didn't spend long doing so.

Maybe, I don’t know. They wouldn’t have seen much, it’s only the more recent digital images that enable many of the wounds to be identified.

[Adam]

I doubt if the defence even looked at any photos. Rivlin signed a statement of facts months before the trial agreeing with the prosecution that JB was guilty. Ainsley commented that the defence only spent one or two days examining statements at Witham. It’s obvious from Rivlin’s behavior at the trial that he was going through the motions. Likewise, I doubt if anybody else connected with the defence bothered to look at the photographs, let alone study them in detail.

They certainly did not check the Sea Wall visibility at night. According to ILB.

[Roch]

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?

Regards PV, we can but speculate..

Only PV can account for himself. S Jones, Cook, Ainsley, Miller & co are all down below with Louis Cypher! 

I'm not sure some members on here realise that Vanezis is a somewhat controversial character.  I don't know whether Bill attempted to contact him. I expect he will remain quiet and hide behind the fact that he worked on the actual bodies, which is probably what the default position is of the CCRC.

[Bill Robertson]

Regards PV, we can but speculate.

I'm not sure some members on here realise that Vanezis is a somewhat controversial character.  I don't know whether Bill attempted to contact him.

I certainly did try to contact him and asked to meet with him. I sent recorded delivery letters, signed for by a secretary, but he refused to meet. Egotistical turd.

[Zoso]

I doubt if the defence even looked at any photos. Rivlin signed a statement of facts months before the trial agreeing with the prosecution that JB was guilty. Ainsley commented that the defence only spent one or two days examining statements at Witham. It’s obvious from Rivlin’s behavior at the trial that he was going through the motions. Likewise, I doubt if anybody else connected with the defence bothered to look at the photographs, let alone study them in detail.

I don't believe they didn't look at the photographs and if such a document existed, that would surly be Bambers freedom card because he could claim he didn't get a fair trial. I am sure Neil would know more about this than anyone?

[Zoso]

Maybe, I don’t know. They wouldn’t have seen much, it’s only the more recent digital images that enable many of the wounds to be identified.

I would say that it’s only the more recent digital images that have allowed the claim that many of the smears and blobs are wounds and cuts.

[Zoso]

Regards PV, we can but speculate..

Only PV can account for himself. S Jones, Cook, Ainsley, Miller & co are all down below with Louis Cypher! 

I'm not sure some members on here realise that Vanezis is a somewhat controversial character.  I don't know whether Bill attempted to contact him. I expect he will remain quiet and hide behind the fact that he worked on the actual bodies, which is probably what the default position is of the CCRC.

He is a highly qualified and very well respected forensic pathologist https://pcoconvin.eventsair.com/ialm20/peter-vanezis

[Roch]

I certainly did try to contact him and asked to meet with him. I sent recorded delivery letters, signed for by a secretary, but he refused to meet. Egotistical turd.

Thanks for clearing up Zoso's query.

[Bill Robertson]

He is a highly qualified and very well respected forensic pathologist https://pcoconvin.eventsair.com/ialm20/peter-vanezis

It depends who you ask. I know several more senior pathologists than him who are scornful of his abilities. It might be more accurate to say that he has carefully cultivated a certain reputation, as have a number of other prosecution friendly pathologists. It hasn’t hurt his image to be seen as an establishment figure of course but public image can be misleading.

[Roch]

I would say that it’s only the more recent digital images that have allowed the claim that many of the smears and blobs are wounds and cuts.

So the original negatives support the prosecution case? Why don't EP just release them to a neutral party then, so that scientific examination using the appropriate software can be carried out to confirm or refute defence claims? Maybe they have. Maybe that's been requested by the CCRC.

Your view seems to infer that blobs and streams are being made to look like wounds. No effort is made by detractors to explain the plethora of different types of marks, some of which are isolated and have no source around them.

[Roch]

Why did police conceal the photograph of Nevill's arm?

[ILB]

They certainly did not check the Sea Wall visibility at night. According to ILB.

They certainly didn't make an attempt of the sea wall in the alleged time frame that the gulity man was supposed to have done it in

According to Mick Ainsley, Wilkinson,

[Zoso]

Why did police conceal the photograph of Nevill's arm?

Which photograph?