Vanezis examined the bodies. So will know from touch and sight they were not internal screws. He said they were 'distinct burn marks'.
Knight said they were marks from prodding.
Boyce says they are burns.
Fowler says how they could be inflicted within 5 minutes.
Caruso says they are burns.
The CT say they are burns.
The OS say they are burns.
Bamber's 2004-2012 & 2021-present CCRC applications is based on them being burns.
No. The biochemistry of the body is completely different post death.
Post death blood pools in the lowest part of the body. NB was found perched on the back of a chair with his head hanging forward and spine stretched and curved. The location of the marks was the highest part of his body. With no blood, spine stretched and skin drying the surgical hardware started to protrude from within the body thus causing the marks.
NB was then moved and transferred for pm. During transfer and at pm he would be lying flat and the pooled blood from his previous position redistributed from what was the lowest parts of the body to different lower body parts ie his back and front when lying flat. This position would remove the strain from the neck and the area would look and feel completely different to how it did at soc.
Dr Vanezis was told by the police officers who attended pm they were proceeding with a case or murder/suicide. He could see with his own eyes each victim sustained multiple gunshot wounds. As Prof Knight said Dr Vanezis had 5 pm's to deal with in a short space of time. He did not attempt to establish tod and his examination of the external appearance of the gunshot wounds was not as complete as it might have been. It stands to reason he did not pay a lot of attention to the marks on NB's back especially given all concerned were proceeding with murder/suicide and the marks did not contribute to death.
Prof Knight:
“In general, I have little criticism of the way in which Dr. Vanezis
conducted his post mortems, especially bearing in mind that he
had five cases to deal with in a short space of time. Perhaps the
major criticism would be his lack of any attempt to estimate the
time of death. I fully realise that this is a very inaccurate exercise,
but temperatures of bodies at the scene should have been taken
for completeness sake in case some very unusual result was
obtained. I realise that he was not called to the scene (or did not
arrive) until much later than is the usual practice of most Home
Office pathologists, but this is due to the different conditions which
pertain in and around London. Also his description of the actual
external appearance of the bullet wounds are perhaps not as full as
one would like, in terms of description of exact size, extent and
appearance of powder marks, burns, abrasion colour etc., but
again he was undoubtedly working under pressure. In general the
examinations were quite adequate.Boyce, Caruso and Fowler were conditioned to believe the marks were burns before becoming involved. Prof Knight was adamant they were not and Dr Vanezis was unsure when examined/cross examined.
