Palm print on Bloodied Bible?

[Caroline]

One bucket's been removed.The one with a garment hanging over the outside of it ?

No buckets have been removed - there was and always has been ONLY TWO. You're talking about this (see below) which has nothing to do with the soaking clothes.

[maggie]

That's a LOT of assumption H. We don't know that her hands were free from blood because that's not what he initially said. If her hands WERE free from blood why on earth write 'hands not contaminated APART from blood'. And for him to suggest the stain on her nightdress came from her palm, he must have had reason for thinking that - if there was no blood on her palms, then he wouldn't have assumed it was a from her palm.

The problem then is that no traces of blood elements were found on her hand swabs.

 I agree with Caroline and believe his original statement which said there was blood on her palm etc. must have been correct because he specifically stated right palm. 

It's mystery why this was changed in the official report which became the accepted fact and was backed up by her hand swabs because forensics stated there were no elements of blood on the palms of her hands........   

[Caroline]

The problem then is that no traces of blood elements were found on her hand swabs.

 I agree with Caroline and believe his original statement which said there was blood on her palm etc. must have been correct because he specifically stated right palm. 

It's mystery why this was changed in the official report which became the accepted fact and was backed up by her hand swabs because forensics stated there were no elements of blood on the palms of her hands........   

I agree Maggie, I don't think it's enough to assume what someone meant - especially as it is a contradiction of what he later said. I think it's something that needs clarification and an answer from Venezis himself.

[maggie]

I agree Maggie, I don't think it's enough to assume what someone meant - especially as it is a contradiction of what he later said. I think it's something that needs clarification and an answer from Venezis himself.

I agree, it's contradictory and causes doubts.  We know there was doubts over when Sheila's hand swabs were presented/represented/contaminated, whether her hands had been washed etc. and it's not surprising when people see such a contradiction........

[Caroline]

I agree, it's contradictory and causes doubts.  We know there was doubts over when Sheila's hand swabs were presented/represented/contaminated, whether her hands had been washed etc. and it's not surprising when people see such a contradiction........

What makes it worse is that the first (handwritten) notes were documented on the day of the autopsy - this was when it was thought to be a murder/suicide. The second was after Jeremy's arrest and when he was very much a suspect. Now I think Jeremy is guilty as sin, but I can't excuse this discrepancy because it LOOKS like the wording was changed to coincide with the change of suspect.

[scipio_usmc]

Sheila did - Venezis said so. I don't see a U stain on the carpet.

Vanezis didn't say anything about the inside of her palms being bloody, he said they were not bloody.  The police said they were not bloody.  There were photos taken of her hands at the autopsy which show the inside of her hands were not bloody.  The only blood visible in any photos and/or mentioned by Vanezis or others who saw her hands was noted as being on her outer wrist/outerpalm area.

The Bible was tested for prints and NONE were found in blood.  The experts who actually looked at this blood up close and personal to look for prints decided there were no prints of any kind in blood they assessed it was made by the carpet which happened to have blood underneath this very area of the Bible.  You don't have all the photos they did nor did you see it up close like they did.

Your speculation is worse than Sutherst's.

[guest2181]

He didn't say anything about the inside of her palms being blood he said they were not bloody.  The police said they were not bloody.  There were photos taken of her hands at the autopsy which show her hands were not bloody.  The only blood was on her outer wrist/outerpalm area.

The Bible was tested for prints and NONE was found in blood.  The experts who actually looked at this blood up close and personal found not palm print they assessed it was made by the carpet which happened to have blood underneath this very area of the Bible.  You don't have all the photos they did nor did you see it up close like they did.

Your speculation is worse than Sutherst's.

I can't help but agree with the above.

[Roch]

It says - Bloodstained palm print on nightdress. Bloodstains appear to have transfered from R hand
Both hands not contaminatd APART from bloodstains.

Why did he contradict himself? Someone would have to ask him that.

What's the date on his typed report - the one which contradicts his handwritten notes?

[scipio_usmc]

What's the date on his typed report - the one which contradicts his handwritten notes?

Since his notes do not claim the blood is on the inside of her hands they do not contradict his official report which clarifies blood was on the outside wrist/palm of her right hand but the inside of her hands were clear of blood.

In any even it was finally filed September 30th.  He prepared it earlier but waited until after the tox results came back form the lab to file it. 

[Roch]

Assuming it is a palm print

if Its Jeremy's that would prove guilt 100% I would say?

(Therefore if it is a palm print, it cannot be JB's print - otherwise it would have been used against him as evidence).

But what if its Shelia's? what would that prove?

That a significant portion of the prosecution case is built upon lies.  It would also pose questions about how the palm became bloody in the first place  - and - why it was portrayed as not being bloody.

[Caroline]

Vanezis didn't say anything about the inside of her palms being bloody, he said they were not bloody.  The police said they were not bloody.  There were photos taken of her hands at the autopsy which show the inside of her hands were not bloody.  The only blood visible in any photos and/or mentioned by Vanezis or others who saw her hands was noted as being on her outer wrist/outerpalm area.

The Bible was tested for prints and NONE were found in blood.  The experts who actually looked at this blood up close and personal to look for prints decided there were no prints of any kind in blood they assessed it was made by the carpet which happened to have blood underneath this very area of the Bible.  You don't have all the photos they did nor did you see it up close like they did.

Your speculation is worse than Sutherst's.

You are denying what has been written (No contamination APART FROM BLOOD)and he has certainly didn't mention OUTER palm (that was you!) and it was changed to WRIST in his later typed statement. He's a doctor for gods sake - he KNOWS the difference between a PALM and WRIST and so do people here. I'd like to see the results of these tests you keep going on about - so far it's just you saying so.

[Caroline]

I can't help but agree with the above.

Then you are BOTH wrong! 

[Roch]

Why did he contradict himself? Someone would have to ask him that.

Wasn't he also the pathologist who carried out the post mortem of Princess Diana? 

[Caroline]

Since his notes do not claim the blood is on the inside of her hands they do not contradict his official report which clarifies blood was on the outside wrist/palm of her right hand but the inside of her hands were clear of blood.

In any even it was finally filed September 30th.  He prepared it earlier but waited until after the tox results came back form the lab to file it.

Since when has the wrist been reclassified as a palm? He doesn't CLARIFY anything at all - he CHANGES palm for wrist.

[Caroline]

What's the date on his typed report - the one which contradicts his handwritten notes?

Written notes were done on 7th August 1985
Typed Version 30th September 1985