CCRC have proof of additional wounds

[Zoso]

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.

Perhaps there is some jealously of his success or his media attention. Don't get me wrong, I don't think he did the best job. His reports are conflicting, especially in respect to the blood on Sheila's hands which I don't believe he has explained adequately.

[Adam]

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,

Why do you think the defence missed an open goal. Over a year period?

Proving the Sea Wall could not be cycled at night creates 'reasonable doubt'.

[Roch]

Which photograph?

The one Paul Terezon complained about.

[Roch]

Perhaps there is some jealously of his success or his media attention. Don't get me wrong, I don't think he did the best job. His reports are conflicting, especially in respect to the blood on Sheila's hands which I don't believe he has explained adequately.

Have you seen some of the controversies he has become involved in?

[Jane]

Have you seen some of the controversies he has become involved in?

Dear me! Did a more unlucky man ever exist? His biological parents gave him away, then went on to have two more children. He seems not to have been exactly what his adoptive parents wanted in a son. His relatives called him  a "cuckoo in the nest". His school 'friends' called him "Bastard". His sister had it handed to her on a plate whilst he believed he had to work his a**e off to keep her in 'luxury'. He had no true friends. But for the, alleged, actions -or, perhaps, non actions?- of  a civilian police worker, he might have been a free man, BUT..............apparently the police didn't like him and conspired, with the help of his relatives who didn't like him, and his ex girlfriend who had very good reason not to like him, to have him convicted. Still, he had hopes of being freed, and MAY have been...........had it not been for the pathologist, who, for reasons we know not, and perhaps persuaded by police? believed getting him convicted was worth putting his, hitherto, excellent reputation on the line for. His defence, being his last defence!, could have come to his aid, but it seems that they didn't like him either. The Judge might have swayed things, but it seems he called it as he saw it.

[Zoso]

The one Paul Terezon complained about.

Which one is that?

[Roch]

Dear me! Did a more unlucky man ever exist? His biological parents gave him away, then went on to have two more children. He seems not to have been exactly what his adoptive parents wanted in a son. His relatives called him  a "cuckoo in the nest". His school 'friends' called him "Bastard". His sister had it handed to her on a plate whilst he believed he had to work his a**e off to keep her in 'luxury'. He had no true friends. But for the, alleged, actions -or, perhaps, non actions?- of  a civilian police worker, he might have been a free man, BUT..............apparently the police didn't like him and conspired, with the help of his relatives who didn't like him, and his ex girlfriend who had very good reason not to like him, to have him convicted. Still, he had hopes of being freed, and MAY have been...........had it not been for the pathologist, who, for reasons we know not, and perhaps persuaded by police? believed getting him convicted was worth putting his, hitherto, excellent reputation on the line for. His defence, being his last defence!, could have come to his aid, but it seems that they didn't like him either. The Judge might have swayed things, but it seems he called it as he saw it.

A simple answer to the question would have sufficed Jane 😄.

You mention the police - you are aware of 29 complaints, twice not properly investigated by EP? The ones which IOPC criticised EP for, advising that they breached their own mandatory guidelines by doing so?

As for the judge.. are you aware that he was the prosecutor for the Shrewsbury 24, as well as the judge for the Bridgewater 4.  Then he becomes embroiled in yet another case that people argue about for nigh on 40 years. Not exactly a glowing record.

[Jane]

A simple answer to the question would have sufficed Jane 😄.

You mention the police - you are aware of 29 complaints, twice not properly investigated by EP? The ones which IOPC criticised EP for, advising that they breached their own mandatory guidelines by doing so?

As for the judge.. are you aware that he was the prosecutor for the Shrewsbury 24, as well as the judge for the Bridgewater 4.  Then he becomes embroiled in yet another case that people argue about for nigh on 40 years. Not exactly a glowing record.

Maybe so, Roch, but nothing I've said can be negated, can it? It all adds up to a barrel load of negatives, and not a positive to be found. Coincidental, or what?

[Steve_uk]

Dear me! Did a more unlucky man ever exist? His biological parents gave him away, then went on to have two more children. He seems not to have been exactly what his adoptive parents wanted in a son. His relatives called him  a "cuckoo in the nest". His school 'friends' called him "Bastard". His sister had it handed to her on a plate whilst he believed he had to work his a**e off to keep her in 'luxury'. He had no true friends. But for the, alleged, actions -or, perhaps, non actions?- of  a civilian police worker, he might have been a free man, BUT..............apparently the police didn't like him and conspired, with the help of his relatives who didn't like him, and his ex girlfriend who had very good reason not to like him, to have him convicted. Still, he had hopes of being freed, and MAY have been...........had it not been for the pathologist, who, for reasons we know not, and perhaps persuaded by police? believed getting him convicted was worth putting his, hitherto, excellent reputation on the line for. His defence, being his last defence!, could have come to his aid, but it seems that they didn't like him either. The Judge might have swayed things, but it seems he called it as he saw it.

..and given that some people had to work hard at school for years on end, do prep and didn't get everything handed to them on a plate on a plate in the 1980s, but had to uproot to find work, not bum around Australia and New Zealand on trips paid for by rich parents, then find work in a sink school, not a rent-free cottage and company car. So resentful he became because this was not sufficient for his playboy lifestyle he determined to kill the golden geese which laid the golden eggs, Sheila, Nicholas and Daniel being collateral damage in this regard to his diabolical plans.

[Roch]

..and given that some people had to work hard at school for years on end, do prep and didn't get everything handed to them on a plate on a plate in the 1980s, but had to uproot to find work, not bum around Australia and New Zealand on trips paid for by rich parents, then find work in a sink school, not a rent-free cottage and company car. So resentful he became because this was not sufficient for his playboy lifestyle he determined to kill the golden geese which laid the golden eggs, Sheila, Nicholas and Daniel being collateral damage in this regard to his diabolical plans.

What does any of this have to do with cuts, scrapes, dints and grazes? 

Why don't you write to EP and suggest the negatives are examined by another expert / laboratory, to contrast the expert's findings for the defence?  We will back up your request.

[Steve_uk]

A simple answer to the question would have sufficed Jane 😄.

You mention the police - you are aware of 29 complaints, twice not properly investigated by EP? The ones which IOPC criticised EP for, advising that they breached their own mandatory guidelines by doing so?

As for the judge.. are you aware that he was the prosecutor for the Shrewsbury 24, as well as the judge for the Bridgewater 4.  Then he becomes embroiled in yet another case that people argue about for nigh on 40 years. Not exactly a glowing record.

The judge can only go off the evidence presented at court.

[Roch]

The judge can only go off the evidence presented at court.

And are you aware of how the Shrewsbury prosecutions came about in terms of the statements?

As for Carl Bridgewater (RIP), Drake later blamed corrupt policing for the conviction. 

Bit unlucky to be embroiled in a third controversial conviction, tainted by non-disclosure and police malpractice?

[Steve_uk]

What does any of this have to do with cuts, scrapes, dints and grazes? 

Why don't you write to EP and suggest the negatives are examined by another expert / laboratory, to contrast the expert's findings for the defence?  We will back up your request.

I don't recall any of this brought up by defence at the 2002 appeal.

[Steve_uk]

And are you aware of how the Shrewsbury prosecutions came about in terms of the statements?

As for Carl Bridgewater (RIP), Drake later blamed corrupt policing for the conviction. 

Bit unlucky to be embroiled in a third controversial conviction, tainted by non-disclosure and police malpractice?

I don't know the full facts and neither do you. There always was a grey area in what constituted peaceful picketing. As for Carl Bridgewater, the jury convicted on the evidence presented before them.

[Zoso]

What does any of this have to do with cuts, scrapes, dints and grazes? 

Why don't you write to EP and suggest the negatives are examined by another expert / laboratory, to contrast the expert's findings for the defence?  We will back up your request.

Is that the royal 'we'?