It doesn't matter how well respected he is. Rolf Harris was a well respected artist and children's television entertainer. Up until a few years ago, Aung San Suu Kyi was revered. Now her reputation has taken a huge dint. When you deal with a medical professional, if you don't agree with them, you are probably entitled to a second opinion from another medical professional. It's why things are 'peer revewed'.
Quite why or how Vanezis has taken on such an infallible repuation is beyond me. His 'expert' testimony helped wrongfully convict someone who languished in prison for several years.
Well, let's take one of your examples from above - Rolf Harris sexually assaulted several young women. His motive was self-serving. Vanezis didn't work for EP, nor did his career or pension depend on them. You're blatantly stating that he falsified Sheila's autopsy report from day one, when he missed out vital injuries which could link her to the murder. I know you don't think it your place to provide a motive - but without one, there is little or no reason for him to have done what he is being accused of.
Before anyone was accused of anything, the photographs would need to be authenticated (I believe you say that there are 'others'). Enlargements of her hands were at trial and were shown to the jury. Of course I know you question the quality of the photo's used but it was only in 1985, not 1885. I fin it hard to believe that no one noticed injuries on her hands or all over her body from these images. Otherwise, how did the person who produced these new images see what others have failed to see and be convinced enough to reproduce them? Presumably, the negatives used to produce the CS photographs are the same negatives that were used to produce the images you refer to? However, these new images, must have been digitally mastered?
