Would June have instantly disarmed Sheila?

[killingeve]

Bearing in mind also both pathologists at trial: HO and defence were unable to conclude what caused the marks and when.  As such the jury could not possibly have used against/for since this aspect of the case was inconclusive.  Surely Bamber/his supporters can see pursuing this is useless?

[Jane]

Bearing in mind also both pathologists at trial: HO and defence were unable to conclude what caused the marks and when.  As such the jury could not possibly have used against/for since this aspect of the case was inconclusive.  Surely Bamber/his supporters can see pursuing this is useless?

'Course they can't! They've found themselves a new cheerleader called Snow. Whatever has previously been said/proved -albeit by those more knowledgeable- such is his confidence in JB's innocence, he just sticks his fingers in his ears and proclaims "La, La, La"............although, in the case of a cheerleader, I think it should be "Ra, Ra, Ra". I doubt they could have anyone better cheering them on.

[killingeve]

'Course they can't! They've found themselves a new cheerleader called Snow. Whatever has previously been said/proved -albeit by those more knowledgeable- such is his confidence in JB's innocence, he just sticks his fingers in his ears and proclaims "La, La, La"............although, in the case of a cheerleader, I think it should be "Ra, Ra, Ra". I doubt they could have anyone better cheering them on.

I'm never sure who's leading who?!  Bamber or his supporters?!  Does Bamber dream up nonsense in his cell and then sell it to his supporters or vice-versa (obviously without the cell!?).  It's not something that's happening simultaneously. 

[Jane]

I'm never sure who's leading who?!  Bamber or his supporters?!  Does Bamber dream up nonsense in his cell and then sell it to his supporters or vice-versa (obviously without the cell!?).  It's not something that's happening simultaneously.

I'm going to hazard a guess that it's a two way feast. On his part, he has to keep them on their toes and believing him innocent -hence the nonsense- and on theirs, it's a case of persuading him that they're believing every bit of nonsense he feeds them, and still fighting his corner.

[Roch]

Bearing in mind also both pathologists at trial: HO and defence were unable to conclude what caused the marks and when.  As such the jury could not possibly have used against/for since this aspect of the case was inconclusive.  Surely Bamber/his supporters can see pursuing this is useless?

Knight's performance for the defence was of a poor quality in some respects.  I am certain Vanezis has been crooked.

With regards to the mark's on Nevill's back, I'm 60/40 on the claim that the Aga was responsible. If the 60 turns out to be correct, at the very least it's another piece of the jigsaw.

[Jane]

Knight's performance for the defence was of a poor quality in some respects.  I am certain Vanezis has been crooked.

With regards to the mark's on Nevill's back, I'm 60/40 on the claim that the Aga was responsible. If the 60 turns out to be correct, at the very least it's another piece of the jigsaw.

But not proof of JB's innocence.

[Roch]

I'm going to hazard a guess that it's a two way feast. On his part, he has to keep them on their toes and believing him innocent -hence the nonsense- and on theirs, it's a case of persuading him that they're believing every bit of nonsense he feeds them, and still fighting his corner.

Jane, sometimes I worry you've been indoctrinated in to a guilt cult.

[Roch]

But not proof of JB's innocence.

Depends on how it could be fit in to the sequence of events.

[Jane]

Depends on how it could be fit in to the sequence of events.

Mmm. I see supporters s q u e e z i n g it in like Victorian ladies getting into corsets.

[killingeve]

Knight's performance for the defence was of a poor quality in some respects.  I am certain Vanezis has been crooked.

With regards to the mark's on Nevill's back, I'm 60/40 on the claim that the Aga was responsible. If the 60 turns out to be correct, at the very least it's another piece of the jigsaw.

In what respects?

[killingeve]

Depends on how it could be fit in to the sequence of events.

How would the sequence of events affect anything?  Even if the prosecution concede the marks on Mr Bamber's back were caused by lying against the Aga post police entering how would this assist Bamber and overcome the weight of other evidence eg blood flake and Sheila's hands and nightdress?

[Hardy Boy]

Bearing in mind also both pathologists at trial: HO and defence were unable to conclude what caused the marks and when.  As such the jury could not possibly have used against/for since this aspect of the case was inconclusive.  Surely Bamber/his supporters can see pursuing this is useless?

Quite right, when asked at the trial, Vanezis say's, "I have given it a lot of thought my Lord, at the end of the day i cannot be certain"  I think if Vanezis had been called to WHF on the morning, he could probably had a better explanation?

Vanezis was a genius, he managed to hide from the defence and Jury all the cuts on Sheila and pass these off as blood trails and show all the one's Neville had in detail.

[Roch]

Quite right, when asked at the trial, Vanezis say's, "I have given it a lot of thought my Lord, at the end of the day i cannot be certain"  I think if Vanezis had been called to WHF on the morning, he could probably had a better explanation?

Vanezis was a genius, he managed to hide from the defence and Jury all the cuts on Sheila and pass these off as blood trails and show all the one's Neville had in detail.

Vanezis court testimony regarding the marks on Sheila's lower arm is quite pathetic.  Also Terezon complained about the photograph of Nevill's arm not being made available (I think HB).

[killingeve]

Quite right, when asked at the trial, Vanezis say's, "I have given it a lot of thought my Lord, at the end of the day i cannot be certain"  I think if Vanezis had been called to WHF on the morning, he could probably had a better explanation?

Vanezis was a genius, he managed to hide from the defence and Jury all the cuts on Sheila and pass these off as blood trails and show all the one's Neville had in detail.

Vanezis' testimony was fact checked by Knight for the defence:

Vanezis cross-examination:

Q: Do you know Professor Knight who is sitting behind me?

A: I do now.

Q: A man of great experience isn't he?

A: Yes.

In other words he (Knight) will be scrutinising your every word.

Bamber was not convicted on Vanezis' trial testimony.

[Roch]

Vanezis' testimony was fact checked by Knight for the defence:

Vanezis cross-examination:

Q: Do you know Professor Knight who is sitting behind me?

A: I do now.

Q: A man of great experience isn't he?

A: Yes.

In other words he (Knight) will be scrutinising your every word.

Bamber was not convicted on Vanezis' trial testimony.

Nobody knows exactly what brief Knight was given by the defence. Therefore nobody knows whether Knight inspected all relevant images, nor the quality of images he did inspect.

Vanezis is a more controversial character than several members of this forum are prepared to consider. Being a pathologist isn't in itself a safeguard against anything untoward.