"He referred to the blood on the outside of her hand as being on her wrist and said that is how the blood transferred to her gown. He said her fingers and inside of her hands were free of blood. That is if one actually wants to understand what he wrote as opposed to deciding to incorrectly interpret it for their own purposes."
NOT in his notes - he said P-A-L-M!
"There is an inside palm and outside palm. The outside palm is adjacent to the outer wrist and often simply included with the wrist depending if speaking about both."
Bollocks! 
All you are doing is denying reality and in the process not helping yourself at all. The left and right side of the wrist are bordered by the right side and left side outer palm "to the North" and the side of left and right sides of the forearm to the South. Photos show blood on the OUTER palms and wrist. Vanezis and police say this is the only place there was blood. They say this blood transferred to her gown.
They have photos that confirm no blood is on the inside palms which the public has not seen because Jeremy sees no advantage in providing it to the public.
You want to pretend Vanezis contradicted himself in his report by suggesting the inside of her hands were blood free yet the outside had blood. You do so by refusing to comprehend his words and now ridiculously denying there is an outside palm. You are doing the same nonsense you engage in to try to pretend the moderator was doctored.
You are just as wrong about that and engage in the same mindless nonsense to try to justify your beliefs. I choose the face reality and actually follow evidence where it leads not make up my own by distorting what people experts assessed.
Those people who actually matter understand Vanezis words and interpret them the way I do. Your interpretation is totally meaningless since your opinion matters not one bit.
You can scream as loud as you liek that doesn't mean you have any evidence to refute their interpretation. You simply choose to believe your own ridiculous interpretation and it is ridiculous to assert that Vanezis didn't realize the contradiction if he were actually asserting the inside were free of blood an in another location suggesting the inside did have blood. He would have realized it if he were contradicting himself.
It is not enough to just offer wild speculation he contradicted himself but didn't realize it you bear the burden of PROVING he meant inside which you cannot do. You can't refute the police testimony her inner hands were free of blood. You can't refute the photos showing her inside hands free of blood. you can't refute the examination records demonstrating no bloody prints found. You can't refute the evidence proving the Bible was sitting on top of blood. You can't refute the evidence proving the Bible was opened, little bits of blood got on it, it was closed, it was reopened to the same exact page exhibiting a mirror image of the stain. No way in hell did Sheila reopen it to the same exact page it had been opened to before.
You ignore the totality of the evidence to make up your own ideas which is no better than what Jeremy supporters do and that sort of informs how you ended up being one of them.
"Look at the lab reports. If you can't get a hold of them then ask Mike if he won't provide them then you are stuck with just knowing the lab personnel tasked with it. MadDonnell among others were shown the photos of the insides of her hands and they said the photos showed her hands to be clean."
Where did you get hold of them? If you have them you post them or is thus just bluster?
What bluster- they exist. I posted the Court of Appeals provisions discussing how they exist. I don't need to read them you are the one who wants to challenge them so you need to read them to even try to find a way to say they made a mistake. My point is unassailable- the lab examined the Bible for prints. They found no prints in blood- the only prints they found were not in blood. That by definition means they decided that it was not a palm print. Lincoln's report covered all the blood testing. The blood on the Bible was not tested. It was not tested because the Bible was sitting in a puddle of Sheila's blood. It was thus assumed it was her blood and no doubt it was.
You are the one saying you don't trust the assessment so you go find it to try to find a way to attack it. I will assume print experts know how to identify a palm print when hey see one especially if it is the whole hand like you claim. It is not a small piece of the palm like her dress had you are claiming it is the entire palm- not even an indentation where the hand dips in which would require the entire palm to be saturated in blood.
"Like the lab personnel whose job it was to physically inspect the Bible looking for prints it was Sutherst's job to physically inspect the mantle in person to look for scratches?
No Sutherst blew up low quality photos of items that were distant in such photos.
What happened to Sutherst is he engaged in the same kind of nonsense speculation you engage in without any basis at all to do so. You are in no greater position than Sutherst was to challenge the experts and in fact an even lesser position than he was. There were no close ups of the mantle but there were close up photos of her hand showing them clean you haven't seen them because you have no cause to be provided with them."
You're the one talking nonsense suggesting that wrist and palm are the same thing!! 
I didn't say they were the same thing. I said that Vanezis chose to refer to the outside palms of the hand and wrist simply as the wrist in his report. You deny there is an outside palm so I guess you think a hand is as flat as a piece of paper. You are straining for nothing. Those who matter already decided that Vanezis was referring to the inside of the hand being free of blood and the outside edges having blood. That is clearly what he meant and how they interpret it. You have no ability to demonstrate this position to be wrong nor do you have any basis to use photos to try to contradict his assessment the wrist made the marks on her gown and the assessment of those experts who said the blood got on the Bible by being placed in a pool of blood and failed to assess it to be a palm print.
Your speculation is not supported by any proof and unless you can come up with concrete proof you are not going to convince me your theory is the least bit accurate.
"Vanesis doesn't think they were finger shaped he said her wrist made them. Blowing them up doesn't help at all it is as much of a waste as blowing up the Bible and trying to say you know what made the marks. I'll stick with those who actually inspected the items in person."
I don't CARE what Venezis though t because according to you he doesn't know his wrist from his palm!
I said he chose to simply say wrist instead of saying wrist and outer palms. But any nonsense you can come up with to convince yourself not to trust the experts you will engage in just like when you decided that because Jeremy wanted the DNA test it means he didn't use the moderator no matter what anyone else says about the subject. You are acting the same way about this but it doesn't really matter because what you can prove matters not what you choose to believe.
