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

[scipio_usmc]

that's why a lot of his other posts should not be taken as gospel either.

No one's posts should be taken as Gospel.  I can actually back up my arguments though.  Carolien cannot which is why she is resorting to sheer nonsense just like she did with respect to the issue of the blood being planted in the moderator.

The only people Caroline has drummed up to support her are the same people who ignore all the evidence of Jeremy's guilt and are so desperate to pretend others support them that they are busy bandying about how Bews wasn't actually convinced Jeremy was guilty because he only said he believes Jeremy is guilt.

You are governed by bias as is Caroline and such opinions don't matter. The only opinions that matter are those supported by evidence and it is the evidence that matters not really the opinion in and of itself.

Caroline runs away from the evidence that stands int he way of believing what she chooses to believe and so do you.

You can fool yourselves all you like but that accomplishes nothing at the end of the day.  It won't change the established facts one of which is that the inside of Sheila's hands were free of blood.  The same way the logs failed to establish 2 bodies were in the kitchen so too does the handwritten notation failed to establish blood was observed on the inside of Sheila's hands. Saying it does it talking out of ones arse.

[Jan]

No one's posts should be taken as Gospel.  I can actually back up my arguments though.  Carolien cannot which is why she is resorting to sheer nonsense just like she did with respect to the issue of the blood being planted in the moderator.

The only people Caroline has drummed up to support her are the same people who ignore all the evidence of Jeremy's guilt and are so desperate to pretend others support them that they are busy bandying about how Bews wasn't actually convinced Jeremy was guilty because he only said he believes Jeremy is guilt.

You are governed by bias as is Caroline and such opinions don't matter. The only opinions that matter are those supported by evidence and it is the evidence that matters not really the opinion in and of itself.

Caroline runs away from the evidence that stands int he way of believing what she chooses to believe and so do you.

You can fool yourselves all you like but that accomplishes nothing at the end of the day.  It won't change the established facts one of which is that the inside of Sheila's hands were free of blood.  The same way the logs failed to establish 2 bodies were in the kitchen so too does the handwritten notation failed to establish blood was observed on the inside of Sheila's hands. Saying it does it talking out of ones arse.

you are talking out of your arse if you have one or are you an alien?

the argument about the blood on the nightdress and bible was nothing about guilt or evidence  because as several of us said it did not prove guilt or innocence . It was about a discrepancy  in a report , nothing more nothing less. So what exactly we were being desperate or biased about? The truth?

the above post is the biggest load of crap you have written and that's saying something

And I don't "think" that , just to be clear - I "Know" it

[Roch]

I reject things when there is something that refutes it. I suppose you realize the points are not valid and will be easy to refute or would nto have a problem posting them.

Yes, that must be what it is.  Or maybe I dont have as much time as I used to.  Nor am I as fresh about the case as I used to be; so it's not easy for me to put together repostes at the drop of a hat..

[Caroline]

You talk out of your arse not me.  I am going by the actual evidence in this case and actual science while you choose to reject such for stupid reasons and because they are stupid reasons you get defensive and whine instead of actually being able to back up your babble.

You intentionally choose not to face what Vanezis was asserting the same way that some Jeremy supporters refuse to face Woodcock didn't actually mean the blood on SHeila's face was wet and actively bleeding. The same way such people ignore the testimony of others like Dr Craig who say the blood was already dry thus contradicting the argument they want to make you ignore the testimony of the other police that there was no blood on the inside of her hands.  You also ignore that the photos taken of her hands show the same thing.  You are acting EXACTLY like those you criticize for misrepresenting.  You don't like it being pointed out that you are hypocrite but too bad.

Your ultimate argument is that when Vanezis put in his notes that her hand caused the blood stain he meant inside of her hand and that this trumps what he put in his report.  H ehad to have lied in his report or been wrong because he can't have been wrong in his notes which he wrote for his own benefit and were not explicitly referring to the insides of his hands no matte rhow badly you wish it expressly said inside of her hand.

You are the one talking out of your arse not me.

Fact: The Bible was examined by print experts

Fact: The experts wrote on their result forms that the only prints they found were not in blood

FACT: that means they failed to identify the blood stain you claim is a palm print as a palm print. 

While I follow this evidence where it leads you talk out of your arse playing games to try to pretend that they still might have identified it as a palm print and that we don't know they didn't.  The reality is that if they had identified it as a palm print they would have stated such and then stated whether they could include or exclude anyone from making such print and would have tested the blood. so.   

You ignore these realities because they go against your desired belief that it is a palm print.

High velocity backspatter is atomized blood. It is a mist and sprays back towards the shooter and the further away it flies the more it disperses. When the weapon is in contact it sprays inside the weapon.  I posted all about this in the past. I provided sources like this in the past to you:

"Blood in flight: high-velocity blood
This type of bloodstain is strictly defined by the size of the resulting drops; the majority of drops in a high-velocity or atomized stain will have a diameter of less than 1 mm. A simple, cursory glance at such a stain might reveal many drops of greater diameter, and there is a tendency to give greater weight to those larger drops that tend to dominate the pattern visually. However, a detailed examination of the stain will reveal that most (>50%) are 1 mm or smaller. Such a stain requires a great force to break up the blood to this degree. In a typical crime scene setting, the only force encountered sufficient to atomize blood is that which results from a fired bullet. As the bullet strikes the source of the blood (typically a body), it atomizes the blood into a fine spray. These small droplets have small mass and thus low momentum; they generally will not travel downrange laterally farther than two feet. Back spatter of atomized blood may also be observed, which will carry the droplets uprange in the direction of the shooter. See Figure 5."

http://www.forensic-lab.com/publications/bloodspatter.html

I can provide plenty of more sources.  I follow evidence by actually making the effort to fully understand it and to accept it and following where it leads.

What you do is you decide what you want to believe and then seek out what you can use to support your argument and ignore anything contrary.

Tiny particles of blood sprayed through the hole in the center of the moderator. Some of these stopped and adhered to the 1st baffle, some the 2nd some the 3rd some made it all the way to the 8th baffle before finally stopping.  The blood lost its momentum and that was where it ended. That is because it only has the momentum to travel several inches plus most already had landed and stuck to the other baffles.  Only the smallest particles had the momentum to travel to the 8th baffle.

The greatest volume of blood on the baffles was on the 1st baffle.  Each successive baffle had less blood.  This distribution is consistent with drawback.  This is all easy to comprehend if one actually wants to do so but people who want to pretend the moderator evidence was planted ignore it because they have no way of dealing with this.

The family didn't spray blood inside nor did they take apart the moderator and decided to plant blood with a miniature dropper on 8 baffles putting less blood on each successive baffle. Thus people who want to allege the blood was planted ignore that the blood was distributed in such manner and ignore all other relevant things so they can keep their fiction alive.  Ignoring such things to present a theory that is clearly nonsense amounts to talking out of one's arse.

You talk out of your arse not me (we can go one forever with this one!). You make words up that were never said just to try and make yourself right. I've already read about about draw back - but where in ALL of the EVIDENCE does anyone mention 'fine mist'? They don't - you did!! Also WHERE in Venezis written report does he mention 'wrist'?

No one is agreeing with you! You lost!! Next time you talk out of your arse - try not to add words that were never there in the first place. Do what you say you do and STICK TO THE EVIDENCE!! 

[Caroline]

No one's posts should be taken as Gospel.  I can actually back up my arguments though.  Carolien cannot which is why she is resorting to sheer nonsense just like she did with respect to the issue of the blood being planted in the moderator.

The only people Caroline has drummed up to support her are the same people who ignore all the evidence of Jeremy's guilt and are so desperate to pretend others support them that they are busy bandying about how Bews wasn't actually convinced Jeremy was guilty because he only said he believes Jeremy is guilt.

You are governed by bias as is Caroline and such opinions don't matter. The only opinions that matter are those supported by evidence and it is the evidence that matters not really the opinion in and of itself.

Caroline runs away from the evidence that stands int he way of believing what she chooses to believe and so do you.

You can fool yourselves all you like but that accomplishes nothing at the end of the day.  It won't change the established facts one of which is that the inside of Sheila's hands were free of blood.  The same way the logs failed to establish 2 bodies were in the kitchen so too does the handwritten notation failed to establish blood was observed on the inside of Sheila's hands. Saying it does it talking out of ones arse.

I did back my argument up  I posted his written notes and didn't make up words. Venezis written notes state that he thought the stain on the nightdress was a palm print and that it appeared to come from her right had. THAT is what he notes say. They don't say 'outer palm' which is what you said. You also tried to ague that he meant wrist - the man is a doctor and knows the difference between palm and wrist. I'm not interested in what YOU believe he meant (I know that might be difficult for someone with your enormous ego to comprehend - but there you go!)! You can resort to as many insults as you like and I will simply return like for like.

You are governed by an inflated impression of your self-worth, it rings out in every post you make, even those that have nothing to do with the case. You either really do have a massive ego and must be the biggest pain in the arse anyone could have the misfortune to meet; or you're the compete opposite and have built yourself an online personality(and I use the term 'personality in it's loosest form!!). Either way, lighten but and invent yourself a little humility and a sense of humour! Oh and don't bother with a long response because when I get to line three of one of your monologues - it just turns into 'blah, blah, blah'.

[scipio_usmc]

You talk out of your arse not me (we can go one forever with this one!). You make words up that were never said just to try and make yourself right. I've already read about about draw back - but where in ALL of the EVIDENCE does anyone mention 'fine mist'? They don't - you did!! Also WHERE in Venezis written report does he mention 'wrist'?

No one is agreeing with you! You lost!! Next time you talk out of your arse - try not to add words that were never there in the first place. Do what you say you do and STICK TO THE EVIDENCE!! 

You are projecting.  You are busy making up nonsense about the Bible having a palm print and can't stand it when your nonsense is shredded.  You have the ego problem not me.

That is exhibited quite clear with your nonsense that you won because no one is agreeing with me.  You still can't get it through your head that opinions based upon bias, ignorance and delusions do not matter at all. I don't need anyone here to agree with me in order to win.  My positions are held by an din fact come from the people in charge of the investigation and Courts- those who decide what the facts are.

As a practical matter you failed miserably at convincing Harters that there was a contradiction between Vanezis's words that is without even getting it not he issue of the blood on the Bible.  So saying everyone here is supporting you is not true.

Your actions and attitude is no different than Jeremy supporters who seize upon the logs and insist that means Sheila's body was in the kitchen- the other statements to the contrary and other evidence to the contrary be damned.  That Jeremy supporters are willing to support you on this means very little just like their support on the moderator issue means nothing.

You have nothing so as to establish your claims to objective unbiased people.  That is what determines whether you win or lose a debate.  Anyone can preach to the choir.

 

[Caroline]

You are projecting. You are busy making up nonsense about the Bible having a palm print and can't stand it when your nonsense is shredded.  You have the ego problem not me. You haven't shredded anything  - just in your own mind - just saying it, doesn't make it so!!

That is exhibited quite clear with your nonsense that you won because no one is agreeing with me.  You still can't get it through your head that opinions based upon bias, ignorance and delusions do not matter at all. I don't need anyone here to agree with me in order to win.  My positions are held by an din fact come from the people in charge of the investigation and Courts- those who decide what the facts are.

As a practical matter you failed miserably at convincing Harters that there was a contradiction between Vanezis's words that is without even getting it not he issue of the blood on the Bible.  So saying everyone here is supporting you is not true. How can I fail at something I wasn't trying to do? I have had this discussion with Harters before you were a member here, we get along and have a mutual respect. I don't NEED anyone to agree with me, least of all you.

Your actions and attitude is no different than Jeremy supporters who seize upon the logs and insist that means Sheila's body was in the kitchen- the other statements to the contrary and other evidence to the contrary be damned.  That Jeremy supporters are willing to support you on this means very little just like their support on the moderator issue means nothing. Your attitude just stinks - end of!

You have nothing so as to establish your claims to objective unbiased people.  That is what determines whether you win or lose a debate.  Anyone can preach to the choir. I have Venezis's written notes, which doesn't use the word 'outer' - you made that up!  . I'm not interested in what you think - you change the terms of the evidence to suit by adding things like 'outer palm' and 'fine mist'. You know all about preaching so I'll leave that up to you!! Amen! 

[scipio_usmc]

You haven't shredded anything  - just in your own mind - just saying it, doesn't make it so!!

I didn't merely state so I posted evidence that did so. I don't need to you to admit it in order for it to be fact.  Your inability to refute my points and instead to acting like a child though proves you realize you lost.

1) Vanezis said in his autopsy report her inside palms were free of blood
2) The police who saw her hands say her inside hands were free of blood
3) photos taken of the inside of her hands show her hands to be free of blood
4) Vanezis and the police had no reason to lie there is nothing gained by pretending she didn't have blood inside her hands.  Blood in her hands would simply further demonstrate she didn't handle the gun because she would have gotten a bloody print on the rifle.

Saying that because Vanezis wrote in his notes there was blood on her right hand this means it was inside her hand and that the photos, his autopsy report and the police claims were all lies is sheer nonsense.

My argument is well supported while your is not. You ignore that there is no reaosn to lie and idsort and simply say they did.  You won the debate in your mind on;y.

I brought additional evidence with respect to the Bible. 

1) Sheila's hand didn't have blood inside to make a palm print
2) Jeremy had no reason to have her handle the Bible as she was being shot she was supposed to have a gun in her hands and having a Bible in her hands as she was shot would indicate she was murdered
3) after being shot he first time she would have to have closed the Bible then reopened it to the same exact page then stuck her hand at the top though holding it in such manner would make no sense
4) the Bible was sitting on top of a puddle of blood that corresponded to the areas of the tops of the 2 pages
5) Those who examined the Bible for prints decided it wasn't a palm print

You have not refuted my evidence you hide from it.  When you fail to refute the other side's arguments it means you lost even if you want to pretend otherwise.

[Caroline]

I didn't merely state so I posted evidence that did so. I don't need to you to admit it in order for it to be fact.  Your inability to refute my points and instead to acting like a child though proves you realize you lost.

1) Vanezis said in his autopsy report her inside palms were free of blood - But said they weren't in his notes!
2) The police who saw her hands say her inside hands were free of blood and?
3) photos taken of the inside of her hands show her hands to be free of blood have you seen these pictures?
4) Vanezis and the police had no reason to lie (I didn't say they did) there is nothing gained by pretending she didn't have blood inside her hands.  Blood in her hands would simply further demonstrate she didn't handle the gun because she would have gotten a bloody print on the rifle. This is just waffle!! I didn't say he lied I said there is a discrepency that NEEDS clearing up.

Saying that because Vanezis wrote in his notes there was blood on her right hand this means it was inside her hand (Palm print - err Dhurrrrrr!!) and that the photos, his autopsy report and the police claims were all lies is sheer nonsense. When did I mention lies?

My argument is well supported while your is not. BS! You ignore that there is no reaosn to lie and idsort and simply say they did.  You won the debate in your mind on;y. (I need an interpreter here?  )

I brought additional evidence with respect to the Bible.  you brought jack!

1) Sheila's hand didn't have blood inside to make a palm print - But Venezis said it did!
2) Jeremy had no reason to have her handle the Bible as she was being shot she was supposed to have a gun in her hands and having a Bible in her hands as she was shot would indicate she was murdered
3) after being shot he first time she would have to have closed the Bible then reopened it to the same exact page then stuck her hand at the top though holding it in such manner would make no sense
4) the Bible was sitting on top of a puddle of blood that corresponded to the areas of the tops of the 2 pages
5) Those who examined the Bible for prints decided it wasn't a palm print

You have not refuted my evidence you hide from it. CRAP!  When you fail to refute the other side's arguments it means you lost even if you want to pretend otherwise. You lost ages ago when you added your own slant!

I'll leave you to your 'me. myself and I' - I just watched a meteor shower and realised how little your BS matters. I'll leave you with one final comment (sick of repeating myself) - so (and finally to you) JOG ON!! 

[scipio_usmc]

I'll leave you to your 'me. myself and I' - I just watched a meteor shower and realised how little your BS matters. I'll leave you with one final comment (sick of repeating myself) - so (and finally to you) JOG ON!!

Everything hinges on you choosing to interpret his notes to mean blood was inside her hands though it is clear he meant on the outside.  There is nothing to clear up.  Those handling the case and the courts know what he meant and that is why there is nothing to clear up. That is as simple as it is.

[maggie]

Everything hinges on you choosing to interpret his notes to mean blood was inside her hands though it is clear he meant on the outside.  There is nothing to clear up.  Those handling the case and the courts know what he meant and that is why there is nothing to clear up. That is as simple as it is.

so when he said 'palm' he really meant wrist or side of hand??   

[scipio_usmc]

so when he said 'palm' he really meant wrist or side of hand??   

He clearly meant the sides of her palm and wrist which is what he put in his autopsy report and what the photos show.

[maggie]

He clearly meant the sides of her palm and wrist which is what he put in his autopsy report and what the photos show.

 

[notsure]

Ive had such a busy day working today and didnt really feel like reading posts but now im so glad i did.  nearly peeing my pants with laughter. At last someone putting scippy doo dah in his place and making it funny too.

thank you caroline and well done, you have brightened my day.

[scipio_usmc]

Ive had such a busy day working today and didnt really feel like reading posts but now im so glad i did.  nearly peeing my pants with laughter. At last someone putting scippy doo dah in his place and making it funny too.

thank you caroline and well done, you have brightened my day.

That confirms I am right. All the usual clueless souls agree with Caroline.