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

[scipio_usmc]

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?

What evidence was created?  Blood being inside Sheila's hands would further undermine the claim she killed herself as opposed to hurting the prosecution case.   There is nothing to suggest any of the evidence was fabricated just people saying they choose to believe such despite no evidence to establish it.


 

[Roch]

What evidence was created?

I strongly suspect that much of the hearsay testimony was 'sexed up' (a term used by us Brits during the WMD scandal prior to the invasion of Iraq).   I dont believe the silencer evidence .  You have to ask why a guilty JB would attack the silencer evidence, if he actually used it in the killings?  In other words even if he is guilty, the silencer evidence is a "crock of shit" (phrase used by one of the most vehement anti-Bamber posters who used to post on here).

Blood being inside Sheila's hands would further undermine the claim she killed herself as opposed to hurting the prosecution case.

 

How come?

There is nothing to suggest any of the evidence was fabricated just people saying they choose to believe such despite no evidence to establish it.

You mean like people who realise that a palm is the inside of a human hand, as opposed to the outside?  People like doctors and stuff?

[scipio_usmc]

I strongly suspect that much of the hearsay testimony was 'sexed up' (a term used by us Brits during the WMD scandal prior to the invasion of Iraq).

1) hearsay is not admissible evidence so if you are talking about evidence used to convict Jeremy you are not using the term correctly.

2) There is a word of difference between subjective suspicion and objective proof of something.  I don't care about suspicions I want to know about specific evidence to support the claims.     

By the way with respect to Iraq nothing was sexed up the World's intelligence agencies all believed Iraq was playing the cat an mouse games including refusing to allow the inspections because they had active WMD programs.  That is what Saddam wanted the World ot believe so they would fear him. He was in violation of the UN cease fire terms for doing so, for not declaring everything he should have and did keep the technology with the intention of resuming his WMD programs when sanctions were finally lifted so they would have had to keep the sanctions in place forever.  They similarly would need to keep the sanctions in place forever to prevent Iran from getting the bomb.  The deal they approved allowing them to keep the heavy water plant which has only military use and to be able to do anything they want in 15 years is absurd.  The sanctions were hurting no only their ability to develop nuclear weapons but their efforts to perfect a delivery system.  With the sanctions lifted they will perfect their delivery system, build a weapon then say screw you like North Korea did.  This deal doesn't prevent them from getting nuclear weapons it just allegedly delays them from doing so though in reality it will enable them to do so whereas under the sanctions they could not.

Obama wants them lifted so he could claim he has some legacy worthy of note in history books while the other leaders wanted them lifted for economic reasons they can't wait to trade with Iran.  There is going to be serious trouble down the road which makes Iraq look like small fries unless someone grows a brain and helps the liberal young people of Iran overthrow the Mullahs.

I dont believe the silencer evidence .  You have to ask why a guilty JB would attack the silencer evidence, if he actually used it in the killings?  In other words even if he is guilty, the silencer evidence is a "crock of shit" (phrase used by one of the most vehement anti-Bamber posters who used to post on here).

Once again I see your opinion.  At least you stated the basis of your opinion but it is a poor one.  A good opinion would disbelieve the evidence when there is something concrete to refute it.  Instead you say Jeremy is trying to find a way to attack it so that means he must know it wasn't used.  He is trying to attack the moderator because he has to.  It was a major part of the case against him.  If he can't overcome it he is not going to go free.  His lawyers have to try to attack it to free him.  Their failure to find anyway to do so means there is no evidence to establish it was in any way fabricated or doctored. 

Jeremy's lawyers are the ones who were busy trying to engage experts to attack the moderator.  Do you seriously expect Jeremy to tell them to stop trying to look at the moderator because he knows he used it or to have told them he used it so don't do a DNA test?   Do you know how many rapists wanted DNA tests that ended up confirming their guilt.  They hoped they would get lucky and somehow the results would be twisted.  That is the nature of the beast you try to attack the evidence that implicates you.  Attacking something insignificant isn't going to get you out of prison that is called harmless error.   
 

You mean like people who realise that a palm is the inside of a human hand, as opposed to the outside?  People like doctors and stuff?

The side of the hands are also known as the outer palms.  I have already recited all the evidence from photos to other witnesses discussing the lack of blood on the inside of her hands beyond Vanezis saying the inside of her hands are free of blood.  People often choose to believe what they want instead of believing what the evidence demonstrates.  You did that in saying you choose to believe the moderator is BS because Jeremy is attacking it as opposed to because Jeremy has actually managed to find evidence to overcome it.

[Roch]

I wasn't implying that the only reason I suspect the silencer evidence as being dodgy is because JB has consistently attacked it.  You are correct that I was implying a guilty JB who knew the silencer wasn't used, would of course attack it.  The point being that you dont need to continually suck up to every single aspect of the prosecution 'evidence' in order to argue the case for guilt; which is what you have tediously done.

The silencer has been debated to death for years.  There are many numerous inconsistancies which have been pointed out and discussed, that tend to indicate in my mind that the exhibit is dodgy.  Inconsistencies mainly around its' provenance: introduction, handling, reporting etc.

As for WMD, I have no desire to get in to some neo-con political argument with you.  I dont think WMD (and the wider events surrounding it) will go down in history as a very honourable or honest affair.

[Roch]

Like Caroline you are just talking out of your butt...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1agaZinJHg

[scipio_usmc]

I wasn't implying that the only reason I suspect the silencer evidence as being dodgy is because JB has consistently attacked it.  You are correct that I was implying a guilty JB who knew the silencer wasn't used, would of course attack it.  The point being that you dont need to continually suck up to every single aspect of the prosecution 'evidence' in order to argue the case for guilt; which is what you have tediously done.

The silencer has been debated to death for years.  There are many numerous inconsistancies which have been pointed out and discussed, that tend to indicate in my mind that the exhibit is dodgy.  Inconsistencies mainly around its' provenance: introduction, handling, reporting etc.

As for WMD, I have no desire to get in to some neo-con political argument with you.  I dont think WMD (and the wider events surrounding it) will go down in history as a very honourable or honest affair.

It has been debated to death for years with nothing found to seriously undermine it.

1) The police didn't take any of the bullets, accessories or even most of the firearms so the family finding Nevill's moderator is totally expected and there is nothing at all surprising about it.

2) There is nothing to suggest the family knew anything about drawback let alone would have the know how to plant blood in the moderator to perfectly mimic drawback. Nor would they be able to access Sheila's blood to plant and would certainly not be able to conceal blood being found in the rifle itself which would have been found if the moderator was not used

3) If police were going to plant evidence in the moderator they simply would do it, not make up a fairytale about the family finding the moderator and telling the family to help lie for them.

4) Ther eis nothign to suggest police concealed the finding of blood in the rifle and did anythign to the mdoerator to tamper with it.

The supposed inconsistencies are meaningless they are:

1) the fact police left it at the scene rather than searching for it because Jeremy lied and said he left the gun out sans moderator

2) In October police decided to redesignate all 4 items found by Boutflour as DB and then changed them all again to DRB when it was realized DB exhibits already existed because of David Bird

3) Stan Jones decided to turn it in to Cook on the 13th because Cook was not around on the 12th after he returned to the station with it.

4) Cook screwed up when filling out the HOLAB forms on one he wrote 23 instead of 22 and this copy with the error went back to the station causing other people to incorrectly write 23 when they were copying from it.

These are the things that cause people to say the moderator evidence is dodgy related to the collection.
None of these claims actually has any ability to undermine the moderator which is why these claims were not even brought up to the courts.  The claims don't amount to anything.

The other attacks based on DNA etc which were argued in court or at least to the CCRC relating to the evidence itself all totally fell apart under scrutiny.

 

[Jan]

point2 is not correct - they had all been round guns all their lives and would have to finish of animals at close range at times .

And drawback just appeared to be a small amount of  blood that was on more than one baffle ? what is so technical about that?

[Roch]

It has been debated to death for years with nothing found to seriously undermine it.

1) The police didn't take any of the bullets, accessories or even most of the firearms so the family finding Nevill's moderator is totally expected and there is nothing at all surprising about it.

2) There is nothing to suggest the family knew anything about drawback let alone would have the know how to plant blood in the moderator to perfectly mimic drawback. Nor would they be able to access Sheila's blood to plant and would certainly not be able to conceal blood being found in the rifle itself which would have been found if the moderator was not used

3) If police were going to plant evidence in the moderator they simply would do it, not make up a fairytale about the family finding the moderator and telling the family to help lie for them.

4) Ther eis nothign to suggest police concealed the finding of blood in the rifle and did anythign to the mdoerator to tamper with it.

The supposed inconsistencies are meaningless they are:

1) the fact police left it at the scene rather than searching for it because Jeremy lied and said he left the gun out sans moderator

2) In October police decided to redesignate all 4 items found by Boutflour as DB and then changed them all again to DRB when it was realized DB exhibits already existed because of David Bird

3) Stan Jones decided to turn it in to Cook on the 13th because Cook was not around on the 12th after he returned to the station with it.

4) Cook screwed up when filling out the HOLAB forms on one he wrote 23 instead of 22 and this copy with the error went back to the station causing other people to incorrectly write 23 when they were copying from it.

These are the things that cause people to say the moderator evidence is dodgy related to the collection.
None of these claims actually has any ability to undermine the moderator which is why these claims were not even brought up to the courts.  The claims don't amount to anything.

The other attacks based on DNA etc which were argued in court or at least to the CCRC relating to the evidence itself all totally fell apart under scrutiny.

Even if I agreed with your interpretation of the points listed above, how do you know that I was referring to these issues?

[scipio_usmc]

point2 is not correct - they had all been round guns all their lives and would have to finish of animals at close range at times .

And drawback just appeared to be a small amount of  blood that was on more than one baffle ? what is so technical about that?

Being around guns their whole lives doesn't mean they would know anything about drawback.  You make that say pathetic argument for everything.  Sheila grew up around people who owned guns so that means she would know how to operate semi-autos though they didn't even own one until less than a year before the murders.  I have guns, I have used them extensively.  I used them in the military I never stuck one to a human and fired. I learned about drawback while reading forensic literature. Other than that there is no cause to know about it.

Many times I have pointed out to you that they not only would not have known about drawback generally, they didn't know Sheila's fatal wound was a contact shot.  Furthermore if they did know about drawback and know she suffered a contact shot they would know her blood would be in the rifle muzzle thus they would know that if they planted blood police would know it was planted.

Atomized blood has to spray inside for it to land on the first 8 baffles. If they were going to plant blood they would just drip a little inside and it would not go far they would not be able to get it on the first 8 baffles.  They would have to KNOW what drawback looks like and how it is created then actively find a way to mimic it.  To do so would be a waste of time unless one knew her fatal wound was a contact wound had a source of her blood or knew her blood type to plant, knew exactly how to plant it to simulate drawback and could remove the blood from the rifle.  It is not a simple endeavor.



 
 

[scipio_usmc]

Even if I agreed with your interpretation of the points listed above, how do you know that I was referring to these issues?

By all means cite any you like.  These are the ones usually asserted. 

[Roch]

By all means cite any you like.  These are the ones usually asserted.

What would be the point?  You would simply reject everything out of hand.

[Caroline]

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.

You regularly talk out of your arse! Fine mist, outer palms? Bullshit!! No one in this case has ever uttered the words 'fine mist' and outer palms'. You insert words and then bully people into believing they are part of the evidence. You go on and on about how you follow the evidence - you actually try and invent it. It was stated that there were two ways the blood could have found it's way into the silencer - by blow back OR A DELIBERATE act. The words were said just as Venezis said PALM not OUTER PALM. You try to pretend he meant wrist in his notes even though he wrote PALM - he's a bloody doctor, he KNOWS the difference - you might not, be he certainly would!

I think we're ALL well aware when he wrote his notes and given that they were written JUST AFTER the autopsy, the details would be fresh in his mind and he wrote PALM.

Trying to belittle people is less than an intelligent way to TRY and win an argument, it makes you sound like a complete prick who just badgers and badgers until people submit. No one is buying your crap this time - so carry on and on and on and on and I'll do the same ........... I like some of your arguments but the big headed crap is getting old. Step of the pedestal you made for yourself - you really ARE JUST MORTAL!

[scipio_usmc]

What would be the point?  You would simply reject everything out of hand.

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.

[scipio_usmc]

You regularly talk out of your arse! Fine mist, outer palms? Bullshit!! No one in this case has ever uttered the words 'fine mist' and outer palms'. You insert words and then bully people into believing they are part of the evidence. You go on and on about how you follow the evidence - you actually try and invent it. It was stated that there were two ways the blood could have found it's way into the silencer - by blow back OR A DELIBERATE act. The words were said just as Venezis said PALM not OUTER PALM. You try to pretend he meant wrist in his notes even though he wrote PALM - he's a bloody doctor, he KNOWS the difference - you might not, be he certainly would!

I think we're ALL well aware when he wrote his notes and given that they were written JUST AFTER the autopsy, the details would be fresh in his mind and he wrote PALM.

Trying to belittle people is less than an intelligent way to TRY and win an argument, it makes you sound like a complete prick who just badgers and badgers until people submit. No one is buying your crap this time - so carry on and on and on and on and I'll do the same ........... I like some of your arguments but the big headed crap is getting old. Step of the pedestal you made for yourself - you really ARE JUST MORTAL!

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.

[Jan]

You regularly talk out of your arse! Fine mist, outer palms? Bullshit!! No one in this case has ever uttered the words 'fine mist' and outer palms'. You insert words and then bully people into believing they are part of the evidence. You go on and on about how you follow the evidence - you actually try and invent it. It was stated that there were two ways the blood could have found it's way into the silencer - by blow back OR A DELIBERATE act. The words were said just as Venezis said PALM not OUTER PALM. You try to pretend he meant wrist in his notes even though he wrote PALM - he's a bloody doctor, he KNOWS the difference - you might not, be he certainly would!

I think we're ALL well aware when he wrote his notes and given that they were written JUST AFTER the autopsy, the details would be fresh in his mind and he wrote PALM.

Trying to belittle people is less than an intelligent way to TRY and win an argument, it makes you sound like a complete prick who just badgers and badgers until people submit. No one is buying your crap this time - so carry on and on and on and on and I'll do the same ........... I like some of your arguments but the big headed crap is getting old. Step of the pedestal you made for yourself - you really ARE JUST MORTAL!

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