Well, let's take one of your examples from above - Rolf Harris sexually assaulted several young women. His motive was self-serving.
My point was that being 'well respected' does not necessarily equate to being uncorrupted or beyond the reach of outside controlling forces. I think that ambition can also spawn a form of 'self-serving'.
Vanezis didn't work for EP, nor did his career or pension depend on them.
Nevertheless, partner agencies within 'the state' often work in unofficial collusion. I think it's very British not to 'rock the boat'. For example, I don't believe for one moment that Huntingdon FSS etc. were 'independent' from the police or that the police had no tentacles that reached in to the FSS. The police / media is the same. We talk about a 'free press' but it's bullshit really isn't it?
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.
No that's not what I'm stating! I think you could be reading too much in to the section of handwritten notes made available. Besides, there are so many cuts, nicks and abrasions, to list them all in minute detail would have been exhausting. When Vanezis carried out the PM, Sheila was not just the prime suspect - she was the
only suspect.
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 find it hard to believe that no one noticed injuries on her hands or all over her body from these images.
I think Jeremy's defence was woefully inadequate - despite big names being involved. However I believe the judge led questioning at trial seemed designed to facilitate Vanezis to dismiss the hand-marks represented in whatever form of 'enlarged' photographic images that were made available. I do not think the jury saw what we have seen on this forum.
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?
Because EP retained control of their own property
i.e. the negatives, to present the case as they saw fit, for their own aims. As I understand it, Bird's photography was not the best. He mainly took body-shots as opposed to close-ups of specific areas. But the enlargement of specific areas could easily be carried out by professionals employed by the crown if need be. I very much doubt that this would remove or undo any of the wounds / marks. They own the negatives after-all? There's nothing to stop them commissioning enlargements or a digital enhancements.
