Well who is supposed to be impressed by it then?
You might not be arsed about the opinion of the CCRC but if you want Bamber to walk he doesn't have that luxury.
While there may be legal experts within the CCRC, The CCRC are not experts on this case. They're essentially paper clip types, tasked with adherence to arbitrary guidelines: and with an unwillingness to exercise powers (which are vaunted by all and sundry in name only). The only time the CCRC would find itself in a position of having to refer this case, is if the authorities lost control of the case narrative, resulting in embarrassment and awkward questions snowballing.
You are right I have no idea which shots caused which streams because I have not seen any expert evidence to support such. With respect I am not going to rely on lay people. I have taken on board the report here produced by the late Prof Herb MacDonnel (since convicted of sex crimes) and forensic scientist Martyn Ismail.
That is your freedom of choice. Nature gave you eyes and a brain. It shouldn't be too difficult for you to try and reconstruct aspects of Sheila's crime scene, while realising that certain vague conclusions proffered in the past, simply do not fit.
What exactly did Vanezis say or not say at trial that was harmful to Bamber?
Read his testimony when discussing with Drake regarding marks in Sheila's arm, wrist, hand etc.
