Does Venezis Written Statement Say That ........

[Caroline]

Or am I going completely mad?

[scipio_usmc]

It says right hand as opposed to left hand.  It doesn't say inside of hand.  The inside of her hand was blood free according to Vanesis' autopsy report, the police who saw her hands and the photos taken of the inside of her hands.

There was blood on out outside edge and top of her hands in the photos and according to Vanezis. It is this blood that transferred to her gown. It transferred form the outside edge of her right hand. SO saying there was blood on her right hand is not inconsistent with any of this. 

[Caroline]

You don't have to study anatomy to any great degree to know that a PALM is the INSIDE part of your hand located between the wrist and the fingers.

[Caroline]

It says right hand as opposed to left hand.  It doesn't say inside of hand.  The inside of her hand was blood free according to Vanesis' autopsy report, the police who saw her hands and the photos taken of the inside of her hands.

There was blood on out outside edge and top of her hands in the photos and according to Vanezis. It is this blood that transferred to her gown. It transferred form the outside edge of her right hand. SO saying there was blood on her right hand is not inconsistent with any of this.

He doesn't say outside edge, he doesn't mention outside edge - he mentions PALM!

[scipio_usmc]

He doesn't say outside edge, he doesn't mention outside edge - he mentions PALM!

You can repeat your nonsense all you like it will not change the fact that he meant the inside was clean the outside of the palm had blood.  The lawyers judge and most other people recognize this. 

You are being like Mike on this issue as you act like him with respect to the use of the moderator.

You choose to ignore:

1) that he would realize it if he contradicted himself in his autopsy report by saying her hands were blood free and yet her palms transferred blood to her gown.

2) the police confirm the inside of her hands were blood free

3) photos confirm the insides of her hands were blood free

4) the experts who examined the Bible for prints said it had no prints in blood and decided it wasn't a palm print- they saw it up close

5) there was blood under the bible exactly where the blood stains at the top were made and that blood would have to transfer to the pages in question unless it were dry by the time the Bible was placed on such blood

6) it makes no sense for Jeremy to force her to hold the Bible as he shot her all he had to do was place it near her body afterward

7) It make no sense for Sheila to hold the Bible open as she is being shot let alone after the first shot was fired to close it, stick the inside of her hand to her wound until it was saturated with blood then reopen it to the same exact page and then hold the top of the right side with her blood filled palm all in a matter of seconds while Jeremy was jamming the gun in her chin to fire again.

Your theory is stupid on top of all the other problems with it.

 
 
 I have listed tons of evidence that refutes your speculation. You choose to ignore it and to make a claim that makes no sense it is that simple. 

AfterSHeila didn't close the Bible then 

[Caroline]

You can repeat your nonsense all you like it will not change the fact that he meant the inside was clean the outside of the palm had blood.  The lawyers judge and most other people recognize this. 

You are being like Mike on this issue as you act like him with respect to the use of the moderator.

You choose to ignore:

1) that he would realize it if he contradicted himself in his autopsy report by saying her hands were blood free and yet her palms transferred blood to her gown.

2) the police confirm the inside of her hands were blood free

3) photos confirm the insides of her hands were blood free

4) the experts who examined the Bible for prints said it had no prints in blood and decided it wasn't a palm print- they saw it up close

5) there was blood under the bible exactly where the blood stains at the top were made and that blood would have to transfer to the pages in question unless it were dry by the time the Bible was placed on such blood

6) it makes no sense for Jeremy to force her to hold the Bible as he shot her all he had to do was place it near her body afterward

7) It make no sense for Sheila to hold the Bible open as she is being shot let alone after the first shot was fired to close it, stick the inside of her hand to her wound until it was saturated with blood then reopen it to the same exact page and then hold the top of the right side with her blood filled palm all in a matter of seconds while Jeremy was jamming the gun in her chin to fire again.

Your theory is stupid on top of all the other problems with it.

 
 
 I have listed tons of evidence that refutes your speculation. You choose to ignore it and to make a claim that makes no sense it is that simple. 

AfterSHeila didn't close the Bible then

You can repeat your nonsense all you like and claim that there is an inner and outer palm and that a palm is really a wrist.

What is stupid is your suggestion that Venezis (a doctor) doesn't know his wrists from his palms and that by saying he thought the the stain on the nightdress just came from her hands when he called it a palm print - if they was no blood on her plam, he's have ruled out the word palm!! What pictures show her hands were blood free? Have you seen them? Perhaps you have copies you'd like to post - to prove you point? Or are you just taking the word of the nameless 'experts'? As for what police 'confirm' - that's not really confirmation!

I don't know why you're listing scenarios when I have even given one - I didn't say Jeremy forced her to hold the bible or that she held it while being shot - so it makes no sense for you to tell me those things couldn't have happened - I didn't say they did!

Perhaps he did realise he contradicted himself - his notes weren't referred to at trial and we don't know when they were first seen.

I won't be agreeing with you so you can liken me to anyone one you see fit - I DON'T CARE 

[scipio_usmc]

You can repeat your nonsense all you like and claim that there is an inner and outer palm and that a palm is really a wrist.

What is stupid is your suggestion that Venezis (a doctor) doesn't know his wrists from his palms and that by saying he thought the the stain on the nightdress just came from her hands when he called it a palm print - if they was no blood on her plam, he's have ruled out the word palm!! What pictures show her hands were blood free? Have you seen them? Perhaps you have copies you'd like to post - to prove you point? Or are you just taking the word of the nameless 'experts'? As for what police 'confirm' - that's not really confirmation!

I don't know why you're listing scenarios when I have even given one - I didn't say Jeremy forced her to hold the bible or that she held it while being shot - so it makes no sense for you to tell me those things couldn't have happened - I didn't say they did!

Perhaps he did realise he contradicted himself - his notes weren't referred to at trial and we don't know when they were first seen.

I won't be agreeing with you so you can liken me to anyone one you see fit - I DON'T CARE 

No other people saw the photos just like other people saw her hands before she was buried and other people physically inspected the Bible. I will take the word of the peopel who actually saw the evidence over people who did not.

You didn't give a scenario because you can't.

Blood got on the bottom half of a page, it was closed, then it was reopened with the mirror image on the opposite page and then after that the stains were made to the top of the left and right pages and blood leaked down the sides of her arm onto the side of the Bible and finally the Bible was shifted so that it no longer matched up to the blood drips on her arm.   

Clearly Jeremy was the one playing games with it not her.

 

[Caroline]

No other people saw the photos just like other people saw her hands before she was buried and other people physically inspected the Bible. I will take the word of the peopel who actually saw the evidence over people who did not.

You didn't give a scenario because you can't.

Blood got on the bottom half of a page, it was closed, then it was reopened with the mirror image on the opposite page and then after that the stains were made to the top of the left and right pages and blood leaked down the sides of her arm onto the side of the Bible and finally the Bible was shifted so that it no longer matched up to the blood drips on her arm.   

Clearly Jeremy was the one playing games with it not her.

Take the word of whoever you like, just don't invent words that were never said.

Of course I could 'invent' a scenario, but  what would be the point? The blood could have gotten on the bible at any point between the starting of the shooting and her death.

I didn't say she was playing games with it.

[maggie]

Take the word of whoever you like, just don't invent words that were never said.

Of course I could 'invent' a scenario, but  what would be the point? The blood could have gotten on the bible at any point between the starting of the shooting and her death.

I didn't say she was playing games with it.

Exactly.

[Roch]

He changed his original findings for the later, typed post mortem report, to observations that better suited prosecution's case. His original findings did not fit with the prosecution's case. 

[scipio_usmc]

He changed his original findings for the later, typed post mortem report, to observations that better suited prosecution's case. His original findings did not fit with the prosecution's case.

Like Caroline you are just talking out of your butt.  Vanezis wrote his report shortly after the autopsy he simply didn't have it typed up until late September after the tox results came back.

Finding that the inside of her hand had blood as opposed to the edges and that the blood that transferred to her gown came from her inner hand instead of the edges doesn't hurt the prosecution case at all.  In fact it helps the prosecution case because it means she could not have been holding the gun when it was fired. 

Vanezis found that both shots were fired within seconds of one another. Several seconds passed after the first shot and then the fatal shot was fired.  We know for a fact she put her wrist area to her wound after the first shot was fired. The blood got on her wrist and outside of her palms.  Her hand was in the air a few seconds because the blood leaked down to her elbow. After being in the air long enough for the blood to drip down her arm her hand fell to her gown.  It makes no difference whether the inside or outside of her hand had the blood that made that mark except that it means in addition to plugging the wound with her wrist and outer palms that she would have to have also left the inside of her hand there at the wound to get covered in blood.  It simply prolongs the time period between when Jeremy fired the fatal shot.  Clearly she didn't have the gun in her hand to leave the mark. It doesn't in any way hurt the prosecution's case nor would a palm print on the bible hurt their case as it would further demonstrate she didn't have a gun in her hands.

No one can come up with a valid reaoson for Vanezis to change his findings because there is none.  Some people who have decided to play detective and want to pretend they know better than the police  have decided to manufacture a conflict by pretending Vanezis wrote that he found blood inside her hands and pretend that such has to be true and that therefore his claim in his autopsy report that there was no blood inside her hands has to be wrong though the error could have been in his notes though it wasn't really an error just being careless in his wording since they were simply for his benefit.

Then it is used to suggest police lied about her hands being blood free, the photos of her hands being blood free are doctored or don't exist they were made up (though experts hired by the defense saw them), police who inspected the Bible for prints either intentionally lied and made a mistake by missing a giant bloody palm print all in order to to pretend a stain was a palm print because Caroline has decided based on blowing up a low quality photo that is must be a palm print because that is what it resembles to her.

This kind of nonsense is unbecoming of someone who is intelligent.  There is nothing at all gained by pretending her hands were free of blood.  If there were evidence she stuck the inside of her hand to her wound it would in no way at all hurt the prosecution case.  It would just further confirm Sheila didn't have the gun in her hand and didn't fire it. If she had blood on the inside of her hand and fingers then had she subsequently touched the weapon she would have been highly likely to leave prints in blood on the weapon.  The failure to find any bloody prints support that she didn't touch it.  So the evidence would have been of benefit to the prosecution.

[maggie]

He changed his original findings for the later, typed post mortem report, to observations that better suited prosecution's case. His original findings did not fit with the prosecution's case.

I agree Roch 

[lookout]

He changed his original findings for the later, typed post mortem report, to observations that better suited prosecution's case. His original findings did not fit with the prosecution's case.

Indeed he did. Not a lot of original findings fitted the case.

[Roch]

I agree Roch 

Hi Maggie,

It's pretty obvious that this is the case, imho.  Everyone has skeletons in their cupboard to some degree.  Maybe even a talented and ambitious pathologist?

I haven't had time to read Scip's post yet..

[Roch]

Indeed he did. Not a lot of original findings fitted the case.

I agree.  It's very tempting to go down the line of JB being a self-centred money orientated liar, which seems to be direction the case is going in.  The problem I have is that much of the evidence looks like it was created in order to achieve the 'right' result.  But if you have to fabricate, manipulate or 'improve' evidence, is it not a very dangerous assumption to make, that the ends justifies the means?  If the evidence wasn't there in the first place, is it not also a dangerous assumption, to use the sole reasoning that JB covered his tracks?