But what he's written isn't lies nor is it fraud. I know nothing about the man himself.
I'm sure if he'd written something which was damning towards Jeremy you'd wholeheartedly agree ? Being as I'm a supporter I'd naturally agree regardless of who'd written it.
Usually fraudulent people do have a tendency to be cleverer than most anyway to be one step ahead of their game, as I knew of 3 bona-fide solicitors who were jailed for embezzlement.
DiStefano did indeed lie in this document. He lied in order to pretend that this is new evidence. He also demonstrated a complete lack of a legal mind because he effectively admitted the evidence wasn't new by admitting the jury saw the very photos of June he complained of. The fact the jury saw them and thus the trial defense saw them means it is not new evidence. They had the ability to have someone examine the photos and assess the various wounds.
He lied saying Vanezis only noted linear wounds on Nevill's arms:
"For the purposes of the Defence, the Crown and the Learned Trial Judge and further the Court of Appeal the evidence was that to the right forearm of Ralph Neville Bamber there existed ONLY bruising of a linear type."
The truth is that Vanezis noted the non-linear wounds as well. DiStefano tries to use this lie to say it was hidden from the defense that there were non-linear marks. Vanezis noted them so this is false but even if Vanezis had not noted such the defense had access to the photos detailing the non-linear wounds and could have had an expert testify about them. New evidence means evidence the defense would have no way of knowing about.
We have seen the photos of Nevill's arms that were provided to the defense and jury and they show non-linear marks. To me and others who have experience with weapons the non-linear abrasions were made by the tip of the rifle stock. When the stock tip hit just a small area it created the non-linear marks. When it glanced against the arms and kept going and thus was dragged across it created the linear marks. His claim that they were nail marks is false. That is why he failed to find any expert to assess such and why the trial defense failed to find anyone to assess such. His claim it was because Vanezis didn't assess there were any non-linear marks and all photos showing the non-linear marks concealed from the defense thus they didn't have any way to do any independent research is hogwash.
June's nightgown covered to her wrists. Her wrists and hands were the only parts of her limbs that were exposed. He claims that in a photo from the morgue that the jury saw he sees a single mark on one of her arms (he doesn't indicate where so we don't know whether it was her wrist of instead a location where her sleeve was covering. He said he can tell it was made by a fingernail. This is totally inadequate to refuting Vanezis' assessment that she had no wounds on her arms. He provides no expert testimony that it is definitely a wound let alone that it was made by a fingernail. His non-expert opinion is not worth anything and should not be relied upon by anyone who wants to discuss this case in an accurate fashion.
