Sheila's neck wound and the blood on her arm

[Roch]

I suggest you read the whole court testimony, I think your right, I would sooner take the word of Vanezis and his court testimony, than the word of someone who knows "F" all about pathology and how a autopsy is performed and what happens at a trial, who then  calls a man corrupt looking at the same photo I am looking at.

I think we should keep things civil as possible.  As when things degenrate to trading blows - nothing good comes of it for anyone involved.

[guest7363]

I think we should keep things civil as possible.  As when things degenrate to trading blows - nothing good comes of it for anyone involved.

Well it would be nice to not accuse posters of pretending they cannot see what you see.

[Roch]

Well it would be nice to not accuse posters of pretending they cannot see what you see.

Well it would be nice to not accuse posters of pretending they cannot see what you see.

OK, I retract the term 'pretend'. 

Here is my reasoning for my approach on this: 

Visually, it's very clear to me what is a cut and what is a smear.  I go by my own eyes and not by a preprepared trial argument, set-up for the purpose of aiding a conviction to be obtained.  A smear and a run of blood cannot incise human skin.  I think people are viewing things while simulataneously blocking out what they are seeing - because of the opinion given by Vanezis in court (or for that matter his notes - which I concur - is more tricky, at least in theory - i.e. on the premise the notes are complete and 100% genuine).

Drake was the judge in the Carl Bridgewater case and another controversial case in the 1970's.  Vanezis has also given expert testimony in another case where a man served 7 years in prison before being released upon appeal.   I do not view these people as 'gods'.  They are not infallable.

[Caroline]

Where does it say anywhere in those extracts, that the jury were shown close up images of the hands before and after cleansing?  It sounds like they may have been shown a close up of Sheila's neck, before and after cleansing - hence the reference to Sheila's chin.   How do we even know what level of quality the photographs or images used at trial were?

Some people have been members of this forum for seven years - and they still from time to time learn something new about case, gain an alternative understanding about a certain aspect or change their opinion about this or that.  They notice different things in images after viewing them over and over again or after being prompted by the enquiries of a fellow member.

In a trial - with an enforced jury of 'non-case experts', viewing images of which we do not know the quality, while simultaneously being led through the preprepared question and answer sessions between Arlidge, Drake and Vanezis - it is possible for a portion of that jury to simply believe what they were being shown and told - without really understanding what this was or the implications of what it meant.  The members of the jury in 1986 were not selected from members of this forum - with the benefit of everything that is known in 2017. 

With regards to her hand alone - you wish to second guess from a sparsely worded transcript from 1986 - instead of allowing your own eyes to recognise what is in front of them.  Since when do runs or smears of blood penetrate the human skin?

Venezis is being questioned about the blood trails on Sheila's arms, the questioner is pointing to a particular photograph which he is clearly looking at, because he states that "they look as if", and if he is scrutinising it then so will the jury. They would all have a copy of the photographs for reference. The pictures they had wouldn't have been copies of copies and nor would they have been grainy - but not one of them or anyone else looking at the original CS photographs (including the defence) came up up with the notion that they are injuries and I say again, there is no reason why Venezis would not have included such injuries in his original notes given the detail he afforded to those on Nevil. No one has given a good reason for him not to mention these marks and are happy to basically label him a liar.

[Caroline]

Well it would be nice to not accuse posters of pretending they cannot see what you see.

I'm with you Justice, I don't see it either but I DO SEE that Venezis didn't mention any abrasions or cuts on Sheila's hand/arm but mentioned old scars and went into great detail about those on Nevil's body. There is a cloud in the sky that looks a bit like an elephant - it's still a cloud though! 

[Caroline]

This suggests the the 'O' type blood found on Sheila's nightdress came from at least two but possibly three different sources! I believe this is capable of suggesting that 'O' type blood found on Sheila's nightdress originated from at least two of the four victims that she was responsible for shooting!

Hi Mike, we need to know what those symbols mean in the column headings, I know the B where the left side extends stand for 'beta' not sure what the other symbol means but I have seen it before. Once you know what they stand for, we can find out what the tests mean.

[Caroline]

By definition, if somebody is involved in a cover up, they might be considered corrupt (if there is some benefit or reward involved).  I suppose it is possible to be involved without necessarily being 'corrupt' per se.  However, their integrity might be called in to question.

What cover up was Venezis involved in on the 7th August 1985?

[David1819]

OK, I retract the term 'pretend'. 

Here is my reasoning for my approach on this: 

Visually, it's very clear to me what is a cut and what is a smear.  I go by my own eyes and not by a preprepared trial argument, set-up for the purpose of aiding a conviction to be obtained.  A smear and a run of blood cannot incise human skin.  I think people are viewing things while simulataneously blocking out what they are seeing - because of the opinion given by Vanezis in court (or for that matter his notes - which I concur - is more tricky, at least in theory - i.e. on the premise the notes are complete and 100% genuine).

Drake was the judge in the Carl Bridgewater case and another controversial case in the 1970's.  Vanezis has also given expert testimony in another case where a man served 7 years in prison before being released upon appeal.   I do not view these people as 'gods'.  They are not infallable.

Vanezis testimony was actually favourable to Jeremy. But its just not apparent to layman person. Its most likely he was pressured by Ainsley and CO but come trial he tried to elicit the truth without making it obvious hoping the Jury would pic up on it or that at least his testimony stays on record for future revision.

As for the 'cuts' there are two others near the forearm that resemble superficial scratches. As opposed to the streams of blood on top of the arm.

[Roch]

Venezis is being questioned about the blood trails on Sheila's arms, the questioner is pointing to a particular photograph which he is clearly looking at, because he states that "they look as if", and if he is scrutinising it then so will the jury. They would all have a copy of the photographs for reference. The pictures they had wouldn't have been copies of copies and nor would they have been grainy - but not one of them or anyone else looking at the original CS photographs (including the defence) came up up with the notion that they are injuries and I say again, there is no reason why Venezis would not have included such injuries in his original notes given the detail he afforded to those on Nevil. No one has given a good reason for him not to mention these marks and are happy to basically label him a liar.

Yes I've read all that.  Nobody on here can provide proof regarding the quality of the images used or how close-up the images of her right hand or arm were.  In my opinion, the best interests of police and prosecution would have been served by not showing really clear close-ups of the right hand or right arm.

Your stance always seems to be 'nobody has given him a good reason why he would lie'.  You should instead use your own eyes.  It is patently clear the the two marks on the back of her hand and the one on the inside of her index are not just smears. 

Dripped smears dont just begin from nowhere, underneath or on top of a crescent-like cut.

[Roch]

What cover up was Venezis involved in on the 7th August 1985?

I didn't say that he was - however - I am not 100% that his notes are 100% genuine. 

I feel the same way about Juie Mugford's 'diary'.

[Roch]

Vanezis testimony was actually favourable to Jeremy. But its just not apparent to layman person. Its most likely he was pressured by Ainsley and CO but come trial he tried to elicit the truth without making it obvious hoping the Jury would pic up on it or that at least his testimony stays on record for future revision.

As for the 'cuts' there are two others near the forearm that resemble superficial scratches. As opposed to the streams of blood on top of the arm.

What are the two small marks diagonally up from the section you have highlighted?  Presumably 'smears'?

Smears without any source adjacent to them or around them?

[guest7363]

Vanezis testimony was actually favourable to Jeremy. But its just not apparent to layman person. Its most likely he was pressured by Ainsley and CO but come trial he tried to elicit the truth without making it obvious hoping the Jury would pic up on it or that at least his testimony stays on record for future revision.

As for the 'cuts' there are two others near the forearm that resemble superficial scratches. As opposed to the streams of blood on top of the arm.

I have to agree with you David, Vanezis performed the autopsy when it was thought Sheila had committed the murders and took her own life, also I cannot pick up anywhere in his hand written notes where he mentions cuts/grazing to Sheila, I must say though I can't read it all.

[Caroline]

I have to agree with you David, Vanezis performed the autopsy when it was thought Sheila had committed the murders and took her own life, also I cannot pick up anywhere in his hand written notes where he mentions cuts/grazing to Sheila, I must say though I can't read it all.

And you won't because there weren't any - I too have my own eyes.

[guest7363]

Yes I've read all that.  Nobody on here can provide proof regarding the quality of the images used or how close-up the images of her right hand or arm were.  In my opinion, the best interests of police and prosecution would have been served by not showing really clear close-ups of the right hand or right arm.

Your stance always seems to be 'nobody has given him a good reason why he would lie'.  You should instead use your own eyes.  It is patently clear the the two marks on the back of her hand and the one on the inside of her index are not just smears. 

Dripped smears dont just begin from nowhere, underneath or on top of a crescent-like cut.

We don't know how many times Bamber moved Sheila's hand position to set the scene for suicide position, or we don't know if or how Sheila used her hand to stop flow of blood after the first shot and how it ran onto her hands, we can only guess, the main question is can one see cuts or abrasions?

[Roch]

And you won't because there weren't any - I too have my own eyes.

There are several.  I havent even mentioned the top of her arm.  We're still on the lower arm / hand 

There are incisions without any source.  A dripped volume of blood from a neck wound, does not cause  incisions on human skin - leaving absolutely no blood around the incisions. 

Reasons have already been given for Vanezis to cooperate with police.  He may even have done so while simultaneously trying to be helpful to JB (as David suggests).  People are complex creatures.