It is my understanding that Prof Vanezis did not make mention of the other marks in his post mortem report, ONLY the collection of bruises ang gave opinion on 3 bruises on Ralf’s right forearm.
“The finger nail lacerations are consistent with a person with finger nails between 5mm-6mm long since the lacerated indentations into the skin are measured“.
There was no original photograph of these injuries available to the defence at the trial, which would have clearly shown the lacerated indentations in Ralf right arm.
He also failed to mention in his report the single finger nail indentation
which is similar to the marks on Ralf’s arm.
The post mortem report on Ralph Neville Bamber commences on page 5 and concludes on page 9. It is important to note the observations of Professor Vanezis on page 7 : “ There was loss of skin from the palm of the right hand near the 5th digit. There was a collection of bruises, 3 of which had an approximate linear configuration, covering a distance of approximately 2” x 4” on the ulnar aspect of the right forearm.”
The existence of a post mortem photograph of Ralph Bamber’s right arm evidencing lacerations caused by finger nails should have been disclosed by the Prosecuting Authorities to the Applicant as part of their primary disclosure obligation pursuant to section 3(1)(a) Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 at the very least for the Appellate Procedures in 2002. It follows that the failure to do so at the original trial denied the Applicant and his then Learned Counsel vital missed opportunities at indeed advocating the proposition that the said murders were committed by a third party.
Lord Justice Kay in R v Bamber [2002] EWCA Crim 2912 stated as follows:
“The examination of Nevill Bamber’s body also revealed black eyes and a broken nose, linear bruising to the cheeks, lacerations to the head, linear type bruising to the right forearm, bruising to the left wrist and forearm and three circular burn type marks to the back. The linear marks were consistent with Mr Bamber having been struck with a long blunt object, possibly a gun.” (Para 42)
For the purposes of the Defence, the Crown and the Learned Trial Judge and further the Court of Appeal the evidence was that to the right forearm of Ralph Neville Bamber there existed ONLY bruising of a linear type.
Amongst the album marked “Original Case Photographs” was a post mortem photograph of Ralph Neville Bamber’s right arm, missing from the album made available to the Jury, Trial Judge and Appellate Courts as well as the Defence.
The photo of Ralph Neville Bamber’s arm does indeed sustain the observation and witness statement of Professor Vanezis in that “there was a collection of bruises, 3 of which had an approximate linear configuration…” and the observation uplifted from the post mortem report in the Court of Appeal’s Approved Judgement in para 42: “linear type bruising to the right forearm,”
but what was not made available to the Court of Appeal was the very post mortem photograph itself since what was available was only the blue photographic albums marked “Jury Bundle” and NOT the album marked “original case photographs.”
What is of some considerable concern and forms part of the basis of the request to the Commission to refer this matter back to the Court of Appeal is that Professor Vanezis made NO mention of these vitally important marks in his post mortem report.
To all intent and purposes on the right arm there was only bruising as stated by both Professor Vanezis and repeated by Lord Justice Kay.
There now being the clearest of evidence that not only was there bruising but lacerations consistent with finger nail indentations – similar in shape, form, length, and diameter in both the arm of June Bamber and Ralph Neville Bamber
The Jury, Trial Judge, Defence Counsel, Appellate Courts and invariable even Prosecuting Counsel had only available a single post mortem photograph of the arm of June Bamber and the witness statement from Professor Vanezis a witness statement which at best is inaccurate and fails to mention vital marks, at worst negligent albeit perhaps innocently negligent.
