Palm print on Bloodied Bible?

[Roch]

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

Maybe not.  Not sure of what this means exactly:

http://www.petervanezis.com/high_profile_cases.html

[Roch]

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

Thank you. 

It seems an accurate assessment then to state the following:

His handwritten notes were completed contemporaneous with the incident (in the immediate aftermath of the incident; once the body had been transported to the place of post mortem).

His typed, contradictory report is written well after Jeremy Bamber had become a suspect.

[Caroline]

Maybe not.  Not sure of what this means exactly:

http://www.petervanezis.com/high_profile_cases.html

Oddly, he doesn't mention the Bamber case.

[guest2181]

Then you are BOTH wrong! 

When was she supposed to have made a Palm print on the bible, how many hands is she supposed to have?

[scipio_usmc]

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.

I am actually making an effort to comprehend what he wrote whereas you refuse to do so in order to go off on your expedition.

He had a section of the report which discussed the inside of her hands and said no blood.

He mentioned there was blood on the outside which was transferred to her gown. The outer palm and outer wrist are adjacent areas.

Police agree with him. Photos agree with him.  Experts who saw those photos agree with him.  In the meantime the people at the lab who physically inspected the Bible for prints found nothing in the blood they recognized as prints.  They figured the blood on the Bible got there from lying in the puddle of blood under the Bible.  Since that puddle came from Sheila they decided the blood was Sheila's and that there was no need to type test it.

If they thought it was a palm print they would have noted such and done comparisons to see if they could match it to Jeremy because that would be damning evidence. To these experts who saw it close up it was just a transfer stain from sitting in blood.

The natural reading of his notes in light of his report is that in his notes he meant blood on the outside.
You are manufacturing a conflict that does not exist.  You do so by deciding you know when he wrote hand in his notes he meant the inside of the hand because that is what you choose to believe and based thereupon that he decided to write something false in his report about the inside of her hands.

[scipio_usmc]

Oddly, he doesn't mention the Bamber case.

He didn't mention any cases where he did the autopsy he mentions only being consulted in high profile cases.

[Caroline]

I am actually making an effort to comprehend what he wrote whereas you refuse to do so in order to go off on your expedition.

He had a section of the report which discussed the inside of her hands and said no blood.

He mentioned there was blood on the outside which was transferred to her gown. The outer palm and outer wrist are adjacent areas.

Police agree with him. Photos agree with him.  Experts who saw those photos agree with him.  In the meantime the people at the lab who physically inspected the Bible for prints found nothing in the blood they recognized as prints.  They figured the blood on the Bible got there from lying in the puddle of blood under the Bible.  Since that puddle came from Sheila they decided the blood was Sheila's and that there was no need to type test it.

If they thought it was a palm print they would have noted such and done comparisons to see if they could match it to Jeremy because that would be damning evidence. To these experts who saw it close up it was just a transfer stain from sitting in blood.

The natural reading of his notes in light of his report is that in his notes he meant blood on the outside.
You are manufacturing a conflict that does not exist.  You do so by deciding you know when he wrote hand in his notes he meant the inside of the hand because that is what you choose to believe and based thereupon that he decided to write something false in his report about the inside of her hands.

HA, HA!!!!! I'm NOT manufacturing anything - YOU ARE!! I'm actually saying what he wrote, you're trying to pretend you KNOW what you THINK he meant. I'm not interested in what you THINK he meant, I'm interested in what he SAID. Again he said "BOTH HANDS not contaminated APART FROM BLOOD" - no mention of wrists, that came later. So, in his initial notes, he mentions PLAMS and HANDS but NOT WRISTS!! In his later written version, just wrists.

[Caroline]

When was she supposed to have made a Palm print on the bible, how many hands is she supposed to have?

Just two. Given that none of us know what happened with any certainty during the shooting, it could have been any times from when it started, to until she died.

[Caroline]

Thank you. 

It seems an accurate assessment then to state the following:

His handwritten notes were completed contemporaneous with the incident (in the immediate aftermath of the incident; once the body had been transported to the place of post mortem).

His typed, contradictory report is written well after Jeremy Bamber had become a suspect.

I would agree with that.

[scipio_usmc]

Thank you. 

It seems an accurate assessment then to state the following:

His handwritten notes were completed contemporaneous with the incident (in the immediate aftermath of the incident; once the body had been transported to the place of post mortem).

His typed, contradictory report is written well after Jeremy Bamber had become a suspect.

Most of his typed report was written in August, before the moderator had any significance.  He simply didn't finish the tox result portion until those results finally came back in September then he filed it Sept 30.  He didn't bother to change his report based on any new developments from the reinvestigation and thus left in the suggestion maybe Nevill was stabbed in the arm with the muzzle of the rifle.  Such was s stupid suggestion anyway because it is impractical to do that with a weapon you bash with the butt unless there is a bayonet attached. In any event by the time he filed it he knew the moderator was attaches so the muzzle was not exposed to be used to cause such injuries.  He didn't bother to drop the assertion though. 

The report is not contradicted by his notes.  The report doesn't state there is blood on the inside of her hands.  That is what Caroline chooses to believe he meant to keep her speculations alive.   

[Caroline]

Most of his typed report was written in August, before the moderator had any significance.  He simply didn't finish the tox result portion until those results finally came back in September then he filed it Sept 30.  He didn't bother to change his report based on any new developments from the reinvestigation and thus left in the suggestion maybe Nevill was stabbed in the arm with the muzzle of the rifle.  Such was s stupid suggestion anyway because it is impractical to do that with a weapon you bash with the butt unless there is a bayonet attached. In any event by the time he filed it he knew the moderator was attaches so the muzzle was not exposed to be used to cause such injuries.  He didn't bother to drop the assertion though. 

The report is not contradicted by his notes.  The report doesn't state there is blood on the inside of her hands.  That is what Caroline chooses to believe he meant to keep her speculations alive.   

Yes it is!

[scipio_usmc]

Just two. Given that none of us know what happened with any certainty during the shooting, it could have been any times from when it started, to until she died.

The physical and medical evidence establishes

1) she was shot in the neck
2) she plugged the wound with the outside pal/wrist of her right hand
3) her hand was up to her neck long enough for the blood to go down to her elbow
4) after several seconds passed she was shot again fatally

It is pure fantasy that they would have been playing with a Bible in the few seconds between the shots.

 

[Caroline]

The physical and medical evidence establishes

1) she was shot in the neck
2) she plugged the wound with the outside pal/wrist of her right hand
3) her hand was up to her neck long enough for the blood to go down to her elbow
4) after several seconds passed she was shot again fatally

It is pure fantasy that they would have been playing with a Bible in the few seconds between the shots.

Not only are you inventing words that were never mentioned by Venezis "OUTER" you're trying to put them in mine - where did I say she was playing with the bible at all or between shots?

[guest2181]

The physical and medical evidence establishes

1) she was shot in the neck
2) she plugged the wound with the outside pal/wrist of her right hand
3) her hand was up to her neck long enough for the blood to go down to her elbow
4) after several seconds passed she was shot again fatally

It is pure fantasy that they would have been playing with a Bible in the few seconds between the shots.

 

Yes, exactly.

[scipio_usmc]

Yes it is!

You failed miserably at proving such.

In his report he wrote that blood was outside of her hands and that this transferred to her gown.  He said the insides were free of blood.

The only way for you to establish he wrote a contradictory note would be if you can provide a notation that states blood was INSIDE her hand not outside. You are unable to do so because he didn't write in his notes blood was inside her hands.

You choose to interpret "hands" as inside in order to manufacture a conflict.  It fails.