Another MASSIVE Lie

[Caroline]

A report written by Vanezis stated that gouge marks found on Neville and similarly also found on Sheila were consistent with them both having been in a struggle. Mrks were on Neville's right forearm and also the right hand of Sheila.

There is nothing about gouge marks in Venezis's report(s) (either typed or written) and he never suggests that there was a struggle between Nevill and Sheila. He mentions that there were 'grazes' on Nevill's arm but nothing in respect to Sheila. We can see Sheila's arms in the CS pictures and there are no grazes or gouges visible at all. The only suggestion Vanezis makes in respect to the GRAZES and linear bruises on Nevill's arm; is that they may have come from the barrel of the rifle.

[mike tesko]

There is nothing about gouge marks in Venezis's report(s) (either typed or written) and he never suggests that there was a struggle between Nevill and Sheila. He mentions that there were 'grazes' on Nevill's arm but nothing in respect to Sheila. We can see Sheila's arms in the CS pictures and there are no grazes or gouges visible at all. The only suggestion Vanezis makes in respect to the GRAZES and linear bruises on Nevill's arm; is that they may have come from the barrel of the rifle.

So, silencer wasn't fitted to the barrel of the anshuzt rifle when Ralph was being shot, hit and was killed...

[guest154]

There is nothing about gouge marks in Venezis's report(s) (either typed or written) and he never suggests that there was a struggle between Nevill and Sheila. He mentions that there were 'grazes' on Nevill's arm but nothing in respect to Sheila. We can see Sheila's arms in the CS pictures and there are no grazes or gouges visible at all. The only suggestion Vanezis makes in respect to the GRAZES and linear bruises on Nevill's arm; is that they may have come from the barrel of the rifle.

Lookout posts about this mysterious report, that only she can see, pretty often. And regularly posts rubbish about marks on peoples arms when they weren't there.  Sometimes she calls them marks, sometimes gouges, sometimes scratches. This is what I was referring to yesterday when she was bleating on about Sheila's illness, Sheilas medication and the side affects of such - when I said that someone who can not even read and understand autopsy reports that are on the forum (and say NOTHING like she claims) is not the best person to talk about medication or side affects and expect to be taken serious.

[Jan]

Why's that Jan? Or do we have to watch it? Welcome back btw, were you banned?

ha ha I am sure Adam tried. But no that was not the reason. A certain poster was pushing me into making comments which were very unlike my normal calm polite posts so I thought it best to step back and take a deep breath. Two wrongs don't make a right

The programme was just very interesting about forensic science history and how it is used . There was a piece where they were trying to prove where a person was standing when they beat someone else to death with blood patterns and they explained how some forensics like this were just opinion not fact as of course knowledge increases with the amount of cases studied. There was also information about the history of using fingerprinting and applying to cases . I think basically the programmes will show that if all the evidence had been taken properly and not destroyed there probably was proof there. But really what struck me was how many years these methods had been in use and that is why EP should have treated it as a crime scene irrespective of them thinking they knew the answers.

I think this week is to do with crimes with guns so again should be interesting.

[guest1199]

Hi Tom, from your account I guess you don't think he did the shooting (some people think he's guilty but 'framed' with the silencer evidence)? Can I ask why you think EP would frame Jeremy when they had the case sewn up as a murder/suicide? Especially as they had to make themselves look pretty stupid and seriously incompetent in order to do so. Also, at what point did they start framing him? If there was a call from Nevill, they knew t from day one and could have proven to the relatives that Jeremy was innocent. If there was a female body in the kitchen, they knew it from day one and could have proven ........ you get the picture. So, when and why would they have decided to frame Jeremy?

Jeremy being framed drags up more questions than why Nevill wasn't targeted first BUT, I can offer a suggestion (or two). The best laid plans don't always work the way they were planned and perhaps circumstances intervened. Nevill may have awoken before Jeremy was able to get into a good enough position to shoot OR he may have been sleeping in another room (there are no casings on Nevill's side of the bed other than those used to kill Sheila, none of Nevill's blood was found in the main bedroom but there was some outside of Sheila's room - on the landing and all of the casings are located near to the main bedroom door). This may explain how Nevill managed to get passed Jeremy and down stairs.

Hi Caroline
You've given me plenty to think about and that's good so, I will respond to this as soon as I can.  I want to refer to some of my post that I submitted a couple of years back (or more) before I get back to you on this.  I have to say that I don't nearly have the same knowledge of this case as the other posters so I'm aware that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing here.

Hoots!

[David1819]

Lookout posts about this mysterious report, that only she can see, pretty often. And regularly posts rubbish about marks on peoples arms when they weren't there.  Sometimes she calls them marks, sometimes gouges, sometimes scratches. This is what I was referring to yesterday when she was bleating on about Sheila's illness, Sheilas medication and the side affects of such - when I said that someone who can not even read and understand autopsy reports that are on the forum (and say NOTHING like she claims) is not the best person to talk about medication or side affects and expect to be taken serious.

This report does exist I managed to unearth it from a web archive. I can get it for you if you like, its the work of Dodgy Di Stefano so it don't hold much credibility if you ask me

[Jan]

Hi Caroline
You've given me plenty to think about and that's good so, I will respond to this as soon as I can.  I want to refer to some of my post that I submitted a couple of years back (or more) before I get back to you on this.  I have to say that I don't nearly have the same knowledge of this case as the other posters so I'm aware that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing here.

Hoots!

I would like to add that of those posters who think he is innocent not all believe the call from Neville to the police happened or that Jeremy was framed.

If Jeremy is innocent he does not know if the call happened  or not.

I think at the point of the investigation being changed the police believed it was murder suicide - but they did not have proof either way so had not choice but to go with the flow on the pressure being put on them.

One other thing in CAL book Julie is quoted as saying she still thought Jeremey was guilty but that forensic evidence might prove otherwise.

Why on earth would she say that? She of all people must KNOW he is guilty.

Same as Bews - he thinks he is guilty?

A lot of people who should know the truth seem to be covering their backs.

[guest154]

This report does exist I managed to unearth it from a web archive. I can get it for you if you like, its the work of Dodgy Di Stefano so it don't hold much credibility if you ask me

No, I've seen that before when you kindly posted it.  But that report only goes so far, and obviously what is in black and white doesn't change  - so Lookouts claims don't hold water when they change. At one time Lookout claimed that June had fingernail marks on her arms.

I agree with you about the credibility of that report and think that "Dodgy Di Stefano" is pretty apt. 

[lookout]

Is there any need for your contemptuous posts in reply to mine ?

BTW,where do you get your crappy theories from------------everyone else ?? Sheeple !!

[Caroline]

This report does exist I managed to unearth it from a web archive. I can get it for you if you like, its the work of Dodgy Di Stefano so it don't hold much credibility if you ask me

So it's not a report by Venezis then?

[Caroline]

Hi Caroline
You've given me plenty to think about and that's good so, I will respond to this as soon as I can.  I want to refer to some of my post that I submitted a couple of years back (or more) before I get back to you on this.  I have to say that I don't nearly have the same knowledge of this case as the other posters so I'm aware that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing here.

Hoots!

Look forward to reading your reply

[Steve_uk]

I would like to add that of those posters who think he is innocent not all believe the call from Neville to the police happened or that Jeremy was framed.

If Jeremy is innocent he does not know if the call happened  or not.

I think at the point of the investigation being changed the police believed it was murder suicide - but they did not have proof either way so had not choice but to go with the flow on the pressure being put on them.

One other thing in CAL book Julie is quoted as saying she still thought Jeremey was guilty but that forensic evidence might prove otherwise.

Why on earth would she say that? She of all people must KNOW he is guilty.

Same as Bews - he thinks he is guilty?

A lot of people who should know the truth seem to be covering their backs.

Where does she say this?

[Steve_uk]

So, silencer wasn't fitted to the barrel of the anshuzt rifle when Ralph was being shot, hit and was killed...

I thought that there was a theory circulating at one point that Nevill struggled with his daughter in the vicinity of the mantelpiece, thus creating the aforementioned scratch marks with the rifle with silencer attached.

[Jane]

Where does she say this?

Was about to ask the same thing, Steve. I've read CAL's book but I'm as capable of "selective reading" as the next person.

[Jan]

Where does she say this?

in CAL book but I will have to check  OS source .